Health Care and the Amish

Will Obama arrest thousands of Amish who refuse "Obamacare"?

The majority of the Amish community (perhaps over 100,000) will refuse Obama’s health care plan. I imagine they will also refuse to pay any fine for not having any health care.

Will the Feds put these people in jail? What will the Feds do when this many people peacefully refuse to be part of his plan? I have a feeling that their minds will not be changed.

So if the Amish are somehow excluded, does that make it okay for BO to enforce it on everyone else?

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

Guess what, there are LOTS of small groups like that who routinely violate well-established laws quite visibly, and are simply ignored. Take a look at the fundamentalist Mormon groups. They have gotten into the news lately, but they get charged with rape, rather than being charged with bigamy, which is a crime in all states. They may be in the news now, but they have been well known for decades prior to that.

There are also hundreds of laws that remain on the books that NOBODY enforces.

Still, how do the Amish get health care currently? Do they simply do without (as the Christian Scientists do), or do they get free care (subsidized by the rest of us), or do they have insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

Guess what, there are LOTS of small groups like that who routinely violate well-established laws quite visibly, and are simply ignored. Take a look at the fundamentalist Mormon groups. They have gotten into the news lately, but they get charged with rape, rather than being charged with bigamy, which is a crime in all states. They may be in the news now, but they have been well known for decades prior to that.

There are also hundreds of laws that remain on the books that NOBODY enforces.

Still, how do the Amish get health care currently? Do they simply do without (as the Christian Scientists do), or do they get free care (subsidized by the rest of us), or do they have insurance?

---

I believe most do without. Glad you mentioned the Christian Science situation, which tends to fan the flames. I believe there are several million of them. :ehh:

If you do without, you do without. I would guess that most of them are technically below the poverty line, so it may not make any difference. Their needs are cheap, and their profit is probably equally cheap. They may not currently be subject to income tax. Why would it be any different?

On the other hand, everybody gets to pay for the support of lots of things that they don't use, such as the childless homeowners who get to pay the same property tax, which supports schools in most states.

Also, as I mentioned, there are those who are subject to laws that they choose not to obey, and on whom the laws are not enforced.

Frankly, I don't see this becoming an issue even if the health care legislation passes with the pieces you believe will be there.

As a Brit I really don't get some of the objections I'm hearing to Obama's health plans.

I can understand why people might not want to pay for it when they've made alternative, private arrangements and I can understand debate around that but talk of death panels and the thought of Feds jailing Ammish people for sneezing without a license are ludicrous.

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States. Basically, assuming you carry on your existing private arrangements, you're going to carry on getting the same level of health care you always did. The only difference will be you'll effectively pay a bit more in tax and if, heaven forbid, you find yourself redundant and without means, you'll still be able to get a decent level of health care.

The debate really comes down to: 'Should I be made to pay for something I may or may not use?' Personally I think the UK health service actually works pretty well (despite what the media and a very few headline seeking politicians might portray) and most people don't bother taking private plans. Those who do will still generally use the NHS unless they've got something serious that'll involve a hospital stay because the NHS is really very good at the small stuff and the accident and emergency stuff. On that basis I'd be a supporter of a state solution but I have to acknowledge that your health system seems to work well too so I guess the jury's out. But the debate shouldn't be about hype stories because that way lies the worst of both worlds.

The Amish use doctors and to a lesser extent hospitals as they deem necessary. The difference between them and us is they pay cash for their services while most Americans have come to expect someone else to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

---

Unlike most of our elected representatives you can actually read the house version of the bill quite easily and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States.

---

Socialism seldom comes all at once. Especially in a country where government distrust is so ingrained. Look what happened to HillaryCare in the early '90s. This bill is merely a step toward that eventual goal.

Most Americans now get their health insurance through their employers as a job benefit and most of them have little if any choice as to which insurance company to do business with. There's no possible way that private insurance companies will be able to compete with a taxpayer-subsidized system. This is by design. Once companies are able to join the government option there will be very few Americans left in the private system. It will simply "wither on the vine" to borrow a quote from a once-prominent Republican. Eventually there will be nobody left on private insurance.

They can tell you "you can still keep your current heath insurance if you wish" all they want. It doesn't make it true. Likewise they can tell you "nobody in the country illegally will be covered" but of course the house Democrats have stripped any and all language requiring proof of citizenship from the current bill.

And there's a very good reason they desperately tried to ram this bill through before the August recess. They knew damn well most Americans would be against this bill once they got a chance to actually read it.

My biggest problem with this bill is the fact that current government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, etc. are not exactly the wonderful, helpful bureaucracies we were promised they would be. Anyone who has had to deal with the nightmare of U.S. government red tape know exactly what I'm talking about. This is why an overwhelming majority of the elderly are against this bill. It seems to me the majority of people who think this bill is a great idea are twenty-somethings who have yet to deal with a major injury or illness.

I can't understand the opposition of the general public to a US NHS, except that a lot of insurance salesmen and directors will lose their jobs - wages that can be better spent on surgeons and nurses - and companies will no longer be able to use health care as a bribe to take on a poorly paid work (or get brown envelopes for promoting a certain company).

I've no doubt that a lot of these salesmen, directors and yes, congressmen and senators taking kick-backs, are pooing their pants and worrying how they'll pay their mortgages on an honest wage at the thought of a NHS, and are paying vast sums of money to politicians (even UK politicos) to go on air and say that it's a terrible idea. (Pay me a million US dollars and even I'll say the system's crap)

There was a news broadcast a couple of weeks ago where an objector said something like "A health service like the UK ? Have you seen the state of their teeth ?" (His own teeth looked like boxers gum shields) I'm pretty sure that if I wanted a perfect set of ivories, it would cost me a damn site less than what he paid in insurance. I think my dentist charges 20 quid for some sort of ultra-violet whitening treatment - but it won't help me chew any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

It seems to me the majority of people who think this bill is a great idea are twenty-somethings who have yet to deal with a major injury or illness.

---

When he was 11 years old, my youngest son would have died if it hadn't been for the (UK) NHS.

The stories about poor health care and beaurocratic delays are BS too. The last time I took my youngest son to hospital via A&E we were expecting to have to wait a little while. However, a five second assessment and one minute triage after walking in, he was on a guerney on his way to a private ward - after that things moved even faster.

The queues are for cry-babies wanting treatment for bruised elbows, runny noses and stained teeth.

As has no doubt been pointed out, in the UK you can always pay for private treatment - you'll get exactly the same doctors, nurses etc as you would on the NHS, just maybe a little quicker and better accomodation - they still want you out ASAP to get the next paying customer in. On the good side, the medical team won't be noobs.

I am incensed by the selfish and self centred ideologies that some people have towards state health care systems.

"Why should I pay for other peoples bad health?"

"Why should an immigrant get free health care?"

"Why should the unemployed be given the same treatment as the employed?"

I could fill a couple of pages with these quotes; total tosh!!! I wonder how many of those people, in a situation where they are unable to pay and in serious pain would refuse free health care.

Its a sad world we live in if we cannot recognise that everyone should have the opportunity to live healthily and it is even sadder that there are people selfish enough not to do their duty and contribute a little.

I am the first to admit that the health care system in the UK isn't perfect and I often piss and moan about pointless bureaucracy when I visit my local doctors surgery or hospital. Without the NHS I would now be dead. Lets assume that I was a US citizen, I would probably still be alive, however I would be in serious debt and would find that most insurers would either not pay for my on going treatment or not insure me.

I am pretty sure that I have cost the NHS a lot more than I have paid in my taxes, however, I now have a reasonably well paid job so am contributing more in taxes and I am able to contribute to the local community and the economy by helping my firm make lots of money :). Most importantly, I owe my continued existence to every UK citizen and a state run system of hard working, dedicated individuals who are not interested only in the size of their pay packets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

... I owe my continued existence to every UK citizen and a state run system of hard working, dedicated individuals who are not interested only in the size of their pay packets.

---

You're welcome. Have a good day :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver

You're welcome. Have a good day :)

---

I'll buy you a beer someday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

I am incensed by the selfish and self centred ideologies that some people have towards state health care systems.

---

You are completely missing my point. Here in America many of us are born with an inherent distrust of government. Many more (like me) learn to mistrust government the hard way. I will not deny our health care system needs a massive overhaul. My side is trying to argue that creating yet another massive bureaucracy will not solve the current problems - they will only make things worse. And no matter how disastrous things turn out to be there will be no going back. Once this system is in place it will be forever, warts and all.

But apparently it is far easier to simply dismiss my arguments as "we don't want people to have health care."

Our health care system is enormous and very complicated. It will not be fixed overnight. Yet the house bill in question was barely completed in time for the vote (that thankfully never came) giving almost nobody (especially the general public) time to even read it. Don't you think it would at least be a good idea to spend some time deliberating on this issue instead of ramming it through before anyone really knows what it's all about?

The fact that they tried to ram this legislation through without debate should send up red flags to anyone. Well, anyone who has no trust in our government. Apparently in the UK there is very little problem with letting the government control everything. That's fine, but that's not us.

If you think health care in America is expensive now... wait until the government pays for it.

One more thing... One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is we have millions of people who regularly use our emergency rooms as their personal physicians knowing perfectly well they will never have to pay for the services rendered.

Yet when those of us who do have to pay complain about this we are the ones labeled as "selfish." I find this highly insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

One more thing... One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is we have millions of people who regularly use our emergency rooms as their personal physicians knowing perfectly well they will never have to pay for the services rendered.

Yet when those of us who do have to pay complain about this we are the ones labeled as "selfish." I find this highly insulting.

---

I wasn't referring to you as selfish, so there is no need to be insulted. There are plenty of people who will take advantage, but I think the benefits would outweigh this. There are plenty of people who sponge off our health service, those include highly paid surgeons and executives, contractors and the general public. Add this to the fact that there is a huge amount of money wasting and I would argue that there is a lot about our system that needs fixing.

The difference is, in the UK, everyone is entitled to a baseline level of healthcare that is decent. Most, not all, will get this. If someone is diagnosed with cancer in the UK, the operation is paid for, the after care is paid for, if they eventually go terminal the palliative care is paid for, the support for their families. It makes no difference if that person was rich, poor, an immigrant who never paid a penny of national insurance or a rebellious traveller.

Make no mistake, I am perfectly aware of the mistrust that the Americans have in their government and I think that this is a good thing to a degree. The US is one of the few countries that has privacy laws that prevent officials from entering your home without good reason. In the UK these laws exist but can easily be overridden. Health care will always be complex and any system that models it will probably be broken from the outset due to the huge number of stake holders involved, however, establishing a baseline level of good care that gives every sick person the opportunity to get better has to be paramount.

Health care is very expensive and any government run health care system is going to be very expensive. Even those paying in the US are probably only paying a fraction of the real cost; for example, in the UK it is cheaper for the NHS to put a patient in a 5 start hotel than keep the patient in a ward.

I have now considered all the groups in the USA who either (1) do not want health insurance even if it were free and (2) those who do not believe in doctoring or professional medical care, either for religious or just personal beliefs. The Amish are just one group that falls into this set. Several other groups even larger than the Amish exist and all are citizens of the USA.

The number of people in these two categories alone is staggering. It exceeds the population of the largest metropolitan area in the United States.

Insurance companies work by pooling the resources of a large group to pay for the losses of a small group.

So if you pay your premium and don't fall sick, you've contributed to the treatment of the person who did fall sick.

Nobody seems to be complaining about insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

Insurance companies work by pooling the resources of a large group to pay for the losses of a small group.

So if you pay your premium and don't fall sick, you've contributed to the treatment of the person who did fall sick.

Nobody seems to be complaining about insurance companies.

---

Precisely. There are low risks and there are high risks. Unfortunately, many insurance companies sell lousy coverage and many people are unaware of how lousy it is until they try to obtain coverage and find out that they are excluded.

I ran into this about 12 years ago when I suffered a severe back injury. The stupid health "policy" I had bought for 5 years failed to cover the MRI, the ambulance, the drugs, or even the x-rays at the ER because I was treated as an outpatient. It was a complete joke.

Quote:

---

The stupid health "policy" I had bought for 5 years failed to cover the MRI, the ambulance, the drugs, or even the x-rays at the ER

---

All of which would have been available, no questions asked, no unexpected bill to follow, through the British NHS. It's a damn good argument that Obama's plans don't go nearly far enough. It's stories like this that make me happy we do have the NHS in this country. Government bodies may not be particularly efficient, but they're not profit motivated either, so at least you can rely on them not ripping you off after taking your money.

Homer, you made me think and I'll add another valid objection to the aforementioned "why should I pay for it" one. "Fear of Socialism". If you're really anti-left wing (does that make you anti-social?:p) or anti-big governement then that is another pretty good argument against Obama's plans. As a dedicated pinko, though, I'd still argue that a decent health service is a neccessity rather than a luxury and I believe that neccessities should be state provided where possible.

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

---

This is a nice article I read a few weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.



Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

---

:lol:OK, that's a little one sided, even for me. It does illustrate an odd wierdness in human psychology, though: Why do people believe that the government they elected is out to screw them but the private corporation they have no control over has their best interests at heart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

:lol:OK, that's a little one sided, even for me. It does illustrate an odd weirdness in human psychology, though: Why do people believe that the government they elected is out to screw them but the private corporation they have no control over has their best interests at heart?

---

Who would you trust more, a politician or a businessman?

Most businessmen need to stay within the confines of the law, but most politicians are above the law. (in practice anyway) :afrog:

That does sound weird indeed!

here's my two cents on the subject. I believe we should offer a national health care system in the hopes that it doesn't become as bogged down at the Canadians system, which is a good system the only real problem that I know of is that it can take 3 to 6 months to schedule critical surgeries and 12+ months for minor surgeries.

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period. With that said I think private insurance should continue, those who want to continue using Blue Cross Blue Shield should feel free to continue doing so, and yes they'll be paying two insurances but that's their choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period.

---

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

Hey, I used to be liberal... VERY liberal.

But sometime in the early 1980s I got kicked in the head by reality. Living in a dying city and watching decades of corrupt single-party (guess which one) leadership drive us into bankruptcy (the only city to do so since the Great Depression) and turn us into a national punch line, destroy private businesses, force them to move or make life as difficult as possible for them to remain, completely and totally devastate our school system (once one of the best in the nation - now with a 36% graduation rate), and force more than 600,000 people to find a better life elsewhere had a lot to do with it.

But hey, because nobody wants to live here anymore we now have the lowest cost of living of any American city. :thumb:

We already have socialized medicine here for the most part - as explained above. It's quite a wonderful thing for those who don't work. Not so much for those who do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

---

I would argue that it goes back much further than that. Probably as far as the colonial days when we finally decided we had more than enough of tyrannical British rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

OK, that's a little one sided, even for me.

---

Well, I guess there's hope for you yet... ;)

People do not have a "right" to health care for the simple fact the heath care can not exist without the labor of others. And nobody has a right to other people's labor.

At least not in a free country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

here's my two cents on the subject. I believe we should offer a national health care system in the hopes that it doesn't become as bogged down at the Canadians system, which is a good system the only real problem that I know of is that it can take 3 to 6 months to schedule critical surgeries and 12+ months for minor surgeries.

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period. With that said I think private insurance should continue, those who want to continue using Blue Cross Blue Shield should feel free to continue doing so, and yes they'll be paying two insurances but that's their choice.

---

What about the non-American citizens who happen to pay taxes in the United States? :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

---

Citizenship or purchase an insurance policy if they're living here for enough of a length of time, it'd be up to them to ultimately decide what they would want to do before moving here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

What about the non-American citizens who happen to pay taxes in the United States? :ehh:

---

If they've got citizenship then they're alright in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

If they've got citizenship then they're alright in my book.

---

So non-tax paying citizens are good for your health care proposal, but tax paying non-citizens are not?

Quote:

---

Well, I guess there's hope for you yet

---

Pah! No hope at all I'm afraid. VIVE LA REVOLUTION!! LIBERTE, EGALITE ET FRATERNITE!!

Quote:

---

Most businessmen need to stay within the confines of the law, but most politicians are above the law.

---

I'm not sure I'd quite agree with that, at least, not in the US or UK (I used to live in Nigeria - anyone with money's above the law there). I think both are confined by the law as it stands (if they flagrently break it they still get nicked). Of course, politicians have considerable sway over what the law is and, let's face it, big businesses have considerable sway over politicians so arguably neither is confined at all except by their own conciences. To be honest, I don't think either has my interests at heart and I hold contempt for both in roughly equal measure. It's a shame, really, because I do come across some politicians and businessmen who have genuine integrity but a lifetime of being on the recieving end of double speak, sharp practice and untethered greed has left me somwhat jaded. When it comes to running a health service I don't particularly trust the government, I just distrust them less than I do private corporations and I've yet to hear a third option.

Quote:

---

when we finally decided we had more than enough of tyrannical British rule.

---

An interesting historical quirk which has no bearing on the current thread but which I love using to goad Americans when this comes up :wave: is that you didn't revolt against a King; you revolted against a Parliament. The monarchy had lost it's legislative powers long before Georgey-Boy turned up on the throne and the tax laws you rebelled against were passed by parliament not by George, who was so looney toons he probably thought the America's were a holiday villa in Burgundy. Whether you can still call democratic British rule tyrannical is debatable. Of course, you weren't getting to vote in that democracy but you got a much nicer climate so it all evens out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

As a Brit I really don't get some of the objections I'm hearing to Obama's health plans.

I can understand why people might not want to pay for it when they've made alternative, private arrangements and I can understand debate around that but talk of death panels and the thought of Feds jailing Ammish people for sneezing without a license are ludicrous.

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States. Basically, assuming you carry on your existing private arrangements, you're going to carry on getting the same level of health care you always did. The only difference will be you'll effectively pay a bit more in tax and if, heaven forbid, you find yourself redundant and without means, you'll still be able to get a decent level of health care.

The debate really comes down to: 'Should I be made to pay for something I may or may not use?' Personally I think the UK health service actually works pretty well (despite what the media and a very few headline seeking politicians might portray) and most people don't bother taking private plans. Those who do will still generally use the NHS unless they've got something serious that'll involve a hospital stay because the NHS is really very good at the small stuff and the accident and emergency stuff. On that basis I'd be a supporter of a state solution but I have to acknowledge that your health system seems to work well too so I guess the jury's out. But the debate shouldn't be about hype stories because that way lies the worst of both worlds.

---

The conservatives are just suckers for the propaganda machine. Most of the conservative media, and the Health Insurance Industry put out a few buzz words "like socialism" or "Obamacare", and false rumors (Death Panels) or inaccurate talking points, to run this bill into the ground.

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

The Public Option would have been the USPS version of a Health Insurance company. They don't have to meet profit expectations, just be able to support themselves with premiums they collect. They also won't have any marketing costs and much less overhead.

Of course the conservative media talks about the Public Option as if it were Single Payer.

If the bill passes without the public option, the Health Care Industry has no real competition, instead they will be getting lots of money from people forced to buy insurance.

They'll just keep raising preimums, raking in the profits.

Quote:

---

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

---

I've heard a few people say that in interviews etc. and I think you're probably right. It pretty much describes the 'worst of both worlds' case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

So non-tax paying citizens are good for your health care proposal, but tax paying non-citizens are not?

---

That's kind of a funny way to word it since to be a US Citizen you're required to pay taxes, which means here there are no non-tax paying citizens, at least there shouldn't be which would be another problem to be fixed. So I guess non-tax paying citizens would not be allowed to participate in the nation health system. Otherwise if you're paying US taxes, would you not be a citizen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

---

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

---

I believe he was referring to illegal immigrants/visitors. If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. We probably have more illegal immigrants in the US than the total population of new zeland anyway.

Actually you do the math. It would be cheaper if we paid all healthcare expenses for the entire country of new zeland

NZ Population: 4,327,091

US Illegal immigration Population : http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

---

They won't because they can't. This will kill the healthcare "Industry" in the US. By industry, I mean the public trading of shares of all public held healthcare related companies. Is it just me or does anyone else think that nuking another massive segment of the market is a bad idea? :confused:

The only stock I have left that is worth a sheit will be worthless as well. :rolleyes:

So long free market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

That's kind of a funny way to word it since to be a US Citizen you're required to pay taxes, which means here there are no non-tax paying citizens, at least there shouldn't be which would be another problem to be fixed. So I guess non-tax paying citizens would not be allowed to participate in the nation health system. Otherwise if you're paying US taxes, would you not be a citizen?

---

That's interesting. No you don't need to be a citizen to be working & paying taxes in the US. You can be a resident alien on a temporary work visa, or a permanent resident who doesn't have citizenship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I believe he was referring to illegal immigrants/visitors. If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. We probably have more illegal immigrants in the US than the total population of new zeland anyway.

---

That's exactly what I was getting at, I just didn't have the right words for it in my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abhijit

That's interesting. No you don't need to be a citizen to be working & paying taxes in the US. You can be a resident alien on a temporary work visa, or a permanent resident who doesn't have citizenship.

---

Ok so how about: If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

---

You're implying that the government will run all of healthcare with a public option.

Does the USPS run all packages?

USPS is pretty efficient, a public health insurance can accomplish the same thing. Especially without the heavy mandate of profits from wallstreet. They just have to break even. They won't even need to pay for marketing.

This barebones serving the public approach will force the other health insurance companies to at least try to do the same, or risk losing all their customers.

People will not be content to pay, out of their premiums, or having their operations denied, or being cut after sickness ... for CEO salaries, shareholder profits and marketing costs.

'scuse me. Point of order. I did no such thing. I simply asked why YOU think there should be a public option. In no way did I imply that the gov't would be running the whole thing. Personally I couldn't care less if there's a public option or not. All I want is to be able to afford decent health care. I don't give a flying fart if it's from a private company or the government. All I want is to know that my needs are going to be covered at a rate at which I can afford. So if that comes about through regulation, tort changes and other changes to the healthcare industry, I don't care if there's a public option or not.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

'scuse me. Point of order. I did no such thing. I simply asked why YOU think there should be a public option. In no way did I imply that the gov't would be running the whole thing. Personally I couldn't care less if there's a public option or not. All I want is to be able to afford decent health care. I don't give a flying fart if it's from a private company or the government. All I want is to know that my needs are going to be covered at a rate at which I can afford. So if that comes about through regulation, tort changes and other changes to the healthcare industry, I don't care if there's a public option or not.

-tg

---

I mentioned it earlier.
But I'll expand on all the things I think are needed.


--> Public Health Insurance Option:
1) No profit pressures from stock holders (cuts cost)
2) Lower overhead due to almost zero marketing costs.
3) Should be reasonably self-sustaining from member-premiums, like the USPS is with postage stamps and package fees.
4) Not reject people with pre-existing conditions.
5) Not drop people who had a catastrophic injury.
6) Be a very reasonably priced plan for unemployed / self-employed people and small companies. Individuals / Small Companies trying to buy health insurance has been screwed over because they don't have the negotiating power. The Public Option will not charge different rates between employees of big companies, small companies, or unemployed.


If public option succeeds, then it should drive the cost of health insurance down by forcing all the private health insurance companies to reduce their overhead, reduce profit taking. Or move into niche markets, providing extra coverage the public option doesn't cover.



A health care bill without the public option, will just funnel taxpayer money to the health insurance industry. And they still will have no incentive to actually improve or lower costs.


--> I actually agree 100% with conservatives on Tort reform. Mal-practice lawyers get a ridiculous 30% of settlements, that's a huge burden on the system. Add Mal-Practice Insurance for Doctors on top of that, which adds another layer of inefficiency and overhead. You have a pretty big burden.

Tort reform will cap losses, making mal-practice insurance much less costly.

With Tort Reform however, for catastrophic accidents, I think Government Disability should step in and help with that individual's medical bills, pay for the Public Option premiums for that individual if he/she needs it. In the end this strategy is worth it. The victim of the medical accident will have their bills covered, and those oily lawyers won't get their 30%.

--> Another major issue is IT, you need to reduce the huge overhead of all these medical paper forms. (Govt might consider contracting Google to help with this).

--> Lastly you need more doctors, not sure how to get this done, but it's a goal that should be on the radar. Baby Boomers are getting old.

Here is an interesting video. Shows the result of the corporate and right-wing propaganda machine, how silly and uninformed the people who buy into their buzzwords and rumors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&hd=1

Quote:

---

People do not have a "right" to health care for the simple fact the heath care can not exist without the labor of others. And nobody has a right to other people's labor.

---

Directors in almost every major corporation in the world pay themselves on the back of other peoples labour. Or do you believe that Directors are actually worth the Millions that they pay themselves ?

For instance in the middle of a recession The Directors of Britain’s 100 leading companies rewarded themselves with a collective total of more than £1 billion last year, despite a near 30 per cent fall in the value of their companies. And that's actually a rise in overall pay at directors level at the same time that these same companies are making redundancies.

These kind of unchecked rewards is why many people in the UK are wary of Private enterprise taking over any further Public services.

Just ask anyone in the UK what they think of the Gas/Electricity market, The Water Companies & Our Train system since these markets were privatised.

Every year my Gas & Electricity bill goes up seemingly regardless of what price the Gas wholesale prices are (wholesale prices go up, our gas prices go up almost immediately Wholesale prices go down, gas prices eventually maybe 6 - 9 months later go back down about by about a quarter or half of the wholesale drop), and despite there now being competition in these markets, i have switched suppliers twice and yet i still by bill is barely different from before.

At the same time these companies announce record profits virtually every year !! This probably has something to do with our wariness of big business being in charge of Public services there track record in the UK is startlingly bad !

I think the USA is going to collapse entirely within the next decade.

hot topic,

i have to say that our NHS is not perfect but the times it's been there for my family and friends i have to say it is a fantastic system and i would happly pay for it.

they where there during the most important day of my life. when my wee girl was born.

I did use a private insurance group for medical cover once, i needed over £1k of work done on my teeth it saved me £500.

it's not perfect but it's better than nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider

I think the USA is going to collapse entirely within the next decade.

---

People have been saying that for 233 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider

I think the USA is going to collapse entirely within the next decade.

---

That's a bold statement.
I don't think so. America still has some of the best land and natural resources in the world, and in the end, that's what's most important.
Everything else, paper money and wealth, can be rebuilt.

Let's stay neutral on this one - too much propoganda this, propoganda that.

People want a safety net in case the sh#t hits the fan and they run into astronomical health insurance bills. Of course, that's the very reason we have private insurance. But, depending on the contract and how it operates under State law, a renewal with pre-existing conditions may cause quite the increase in premiums. If you start out without insurance and have a condition, your premiums will of course be much higher.

So the question comes down to - why should an individual be forced to share the cost of maintaining the health of another individual? Some will argue humanity, invested value (years of education and experience), but the net effect is IT IS NOT my responsibility to care for you, nor you for me.

As an example, I have an uncle who is in his 60's, and all he has done for the better part of 20 years is drink himself silly, and most recently picked up a drug habit again. All of this has taken quite the toll on his liver. Now, if I told you that YOU HAVE to take care of my uncle's medical expenses through your taxes, and because of that, some 5 year old girl who could have a life-saving operation will be denied until next budget year because there simply isn't enough pool funds available, would you think that fair? Further, who makes the decision? And how could it ever be done accurately on an individual basis x 300 million people?

Now, people will claim there are directors making X amount of money on the backs of the poor, but the reality is government will easily waste that amount x 100 simply because it has always been ineffective at efficiency. There is no incentive to improve - ever.

In my mind, the increasing costs are due to litigation insurance. I've seen states where caps were removed, and health care costs skyrocketed, but when caps were re-instituted, costs came back in line.

• Medical malpractice liability -- the "tort tax" on doctors and hospitals -- has grown much faster than overall health care inflation and costs the average American family of four more than $3,300 a year, according to a Tillinghast-Towers Perrin study in 2003.
• Defensive medicine inflates health care costs by encouraging unnecessary procedures and referrals that doctors and hospitals prescribe in order to limit their exposure to future litigation.
• Vaccines are particularly susceptible to litigation, and although Congress has shielded some existing vaccines from liability, new vaccines and other drugs vital to public health threats remain vulnerable.

This is why you always hear the US gets less health per dollar than other countries, yet unsurprisingly, there is no part of the new health care bill that deals with capping/restricting litigation issues.

But you will never hear solutions to these problems from the Democratic party, because they are bought and paid for by lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Let's stay neutral on this one - too much propoganda this, propoganda that.

People want a safety net in case the sh#t hits the fan and they run into astronomical health insurance bills. Of course, that's the very reason we have private insurance. But, depending on the contract and how it operates under State law, a renewal with pre-existing conditions may cause quite the increase in premiums. If you start out without insurance and have a condition, your premiums will of course be much higher.

So the question comes down to - why should an individual be forced to share the cost of maintaining the health of another individual? Some will argue humanity, invested value (years of education and experience), but the net effect is IT IS NOT my responsibility to care for you, nor you for me.

As an example, I have an uncle who is in his 60's, and all he has done for the better part of 20 years is drink himself silly, and most recently picked up a drug habit again. All of this has taken quite the toll on his liver. Now, if I told you that YOU HAVE to take care of my uncle's medical expenses through your taxes, and because of that, some 5 year old girl who could have a life-saving operation will be denied until next budget year because there simply isn't enough pool funds available, would you think that fair? Further, who makes the decision? And how could it ever be done accurately on an individual basis x 300 million people?

Now, people will claim there are directors making X amount of money on the backs of the poor, but the reality is government will easily waste that amount x 100 simply because it has always been ineffective at efficiency. There is no incentive to improve - ever.

In my mind, the increasing costs are due to litigation insurance. I've seen states where caps were removed, and health care costs skyrocketed, but when caps were re-instituted, costs came back in line.

• Medical malpractice liability -- the "tort tax" on doctors and hospitals -- has grown much faster than overall health care inflation and costs the average American family of four more than $3,300 a year, according to a Tillinghast-Towers Perrin study in 2003.
• Defensive medicine inflates health care costs by encouraging unnecessary procedures and referrals that doctors and hospitals prescribe in order to limit their exposure to future litigation.
• Vaccines are particularly susceptible to litigation, and although Congress has shielded some existing vaccines from liability, new vaccines and other drugs vital to public health threats remain vulnerable.

This is why you always hear the US gets less health per dollar than other countries, yet unsurprisingly, there is no part of the new health care bill that deals with capping/restricting litigation issues.

But you will never hear solutions to these problems from the Democratic party, because they are bought and paid for by lawyers.

---

I agree, Democrats are in the pockets of lawyers. However it is a little encouraging that Obama mentioned tort reform (I think) in his speech.

But the Republicans are in the pockets of the Health Insurance Lobby, and they are spreading lies and misinformation about the Public Option to kill it.

Quote:

---

Let's stay neutral on this one

---

Epic Fail!

Quote:

---

IT IS NOT my responsibility to care for you, nor you for me.

---

It is if you believe in society.

Quote:

---

I have an uncle who is in his 60's...

---

There will always be people who take advantage of and abuse any system and any system will contain inequity and unfairness. That's as true of a private system as a state one. Would it be fair if your uncle recieved immediate treatment because he's just taken thousands in bonuses from a failing organisation while the five year old girl was left to die because her father got made redundant from that organisation 6 months ago and hasn't been able to find further work? It's easy to create a horror story to support either side of the argument but it's not particularly useful.

I think you're right about litigation being a major problem in your current system and I don't see anything inherent about a state system that would change that. I think that's part of a bigger problem the US faces, though. You guys live in a litigation culture and that damages your society. It's a peculiarly American disease that I have no idea of the cause of or the cure for. I wish I did, though, because the UK seems to be contracting an incrasingly nasty dose of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

... a renewal with pre-existing conditions may cause quite the increase in premiums. If you start out without insurance and have a condition, your premiums will of course be much higher.

---

Not an issue with an NHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

... some 5 year old girl who could have a life-saving operation will be denied until next budget year because there simply isn't enough pool funds available ...

---

Not an issue with an NHS. Is that one of the lines that the nay-sayers have been feeding you? If they say that happens in the UK, they're lying (again :rolleyes:). The annual budgets are estimates, not absolutes. The medical staff also have some altruism, and will work pro bono if necessary - they didn't go into the profession with the idea of screwing every penny out of the system. Nor are they clock watchers - you can't have a change of shift in the middle of major surgery that's tripled from the original 2 hour estimate (as happened with my son).

On 2nd thoughts, the US should vote against an NHS. We don't want a "brain-drain". We're happy to keep our world beating medical staff right where they are - here in the UK :bigyello:

These were not comparisons against the British health system, these are actualities in life. There is only so many resources available.

But since you brought it up and had to flaunt it, here's a short list of the serious problems with social healthcare, NHS-style (I mean if you catch a cold, I'm sure the NHS is great, but if you need some real honest-to-goodness medical care, egh, er... well, just don't get cancer):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-Europe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4157

Bill O'Reilly supports the Public Option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqvWJ...e=channel_page

My mother inlaw was found to have cancer last december, she was rushed in for an emegency op and almost 1 year later she has fully recovered. i'm glad we didn't have to pay for the treatment as i would not be living in the streets with my 2 kids and mother in-law.

If the same was to happen with a person of il-means in the US how would they get treatment? would they be sent home to die in agony ?

headline grabing stories (3 of them using the same source) are the usual over here. all taken with a pinch of salt.

I could google heathcare in the US but....

i know of many people who have had serious illness and came through thanks to the NHS. i would prefer it our way than turning people without the cash away to die. different morals i suspect

The figures for the surveys in the Telegraph and the BBC articles are all taken from the 90's or the early millenium and the government and NHS have been specifically targetting cancer since because it was recognised as a failing. I haven't seen any up to date surveys but it's generally accepted that they'll be MUCH better now. The other article in teh Telegraph is about doctors raising a concern that they think the wrong aproach is being taken in a particular area - nothing wrong with that. I didn't bother reading the article in Capitalism Magazine because, while I don't know the magazine, I don't imagine it's particularly balanced with a name like that.

You're still missing the point though. The NHS provides a safety net. It does not replace private insurance and, if you want to get alternative treatment, you still have that option. The NHS means that anyone, no matter their circumstance, can get a good quality of basic care. Notably, Most people who have the means still don't bother going provate because we're quite happy with the service the NHS provides. The one area it really does fall down is in the procurment of some drugs (particaularly cancer drugs, incidentaly) which have become too expensive to provide through the system. for those drugs you would need to go private (although the NHS does offer less expensive alternatives)

There are always going to be pros and cons to whatever system is set up as a public body, health-related or otherwise.
Clearly in the case of healthcare, there are going to be people who use it despite having created many of their own problems (drug abuse, alcohol abuse etc), there is going to be government red tape, and supply and demand will not be determined simply by the price any more. Also, you will find (as we do) that A&E is perpetually overrun with people who are worried rather than actually sick, and instead of going to their GP as a first point of call (perhaps because they don't like their GP, don't trust him, or he has too long waiting times), they pitch up in hospital.

The alternative is that, by allowing a price element into it, you are discouraging people from making use of healthcare because they can't afford it, either as an upfront payment or if their premiums rise. That is the essence of a price-based system! Unfortunately, people themselves are in general not sufficiently medically-educated to determine whether or not seeking healthcare in their current medical situation represents good value for money, and sometimes are not able to make that choice.
Additionally, the nature of a private medical insurance scheme is that it is out to make money (of course!), and consequently has every incentive to deny you cover if there is the chance that it will not make the money back in premiums. That will ALWAYS happen in any insurance scheme, and I personally would rather have another option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davadvice

i'm glad we didn't have to pay for the treatment

---

Oh, but you did, you have, and you still are!


Seriously though, you have to realize the US is 50 States, and each State has different options. Many States have public programs and most are backed with federal dollars.

Medicaid is the first stop - but you must be poor and have little-to-no assets to qualify. You may not qualify, but it IS EXPECTED that if you have the means to BUY private health insurance, you better buy it! I mean, we're all growns up here right, we don't need the government to tell us how to run our lives, do we?

Failing eligibilty for Medicaid, a family could apply for the SCHIP program in their State - which doesn't necessarily limit to assets. In some States this program only provides health insurance to children under 18. People 18 and over are expected to buy their own insurance. But in States like mine, people of all ages get covered.

If all that fails, you have to expensive care done (cancer surgeries, etc), you declare Medical Bankruptcy or you see if the providers write it off. Sure, you have that on your credit report for 7 years, but you'll still be alive and next time perhaps you learn to buy insurance against risk.

Now, I understand the flip side, which is people in their older years generally become more sick and diseased, and at some point, everyone is sick.

And that's why we have Medicare for citizens 65 and older. Some providers accept it, some don't. Like the NHS, It is a basic level of care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

As an example, I have an uncle who is in his 60's, and all he has done for the better part of 20 years is drink himself silly, and most recently picked up a drug habit again.

---

That statement is redundant.

Quote:

---

Now, people will claim there are directors making X amount of money on the backs of the poor, but the reality is government will easily waste that amount x 100 simply because it has always been ineffective at efficiency. There is no incentive to improve - ever.

---

So much for remaining neutral. That's a conservative position, and a combination of untrue and misunderstanding. We are the cause of the inefficiency. It isn't a lack of incentive to improve, it is caused by something else...which I'll ignore, because I don't want to talk about that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

One more thing... One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is we have millions of people who regularly use our emergency rooms as their personal physicians knowing perfectly well they will never have to pay for the services rendered.

Yet when those of us who do have to pay complain about this we are the ones labeled as "selfish." I find this highly insulting.

---

Homer started down the right track, but didn't go far enough. Now, I'm going to fix that by going on a long rambling argument. Hopefully, this will be politically neutral, which is rare for me, but my point is mathematical, and I hope somebody will come up with a mathematical rebuttal, because I hate my own argument. Unfortunately, it is lengthy.

First off, consider the insurance model: In the case of car insurance, I have been paying for decades. In that time, I have paid in enough to pay for a new car, yet I have never made a claim. This doesn't bother me, though, because the point of insurance is that it will be there if my luck turns bad. As far as the insurance company is concerned, the actuarial tables tell them the probability of paying X amount to me, which tells them how much they need to charge me to recoup their cost. Perhaps they add a percentage for profit, or perhaps they realize a profit by investing my money (they do, I just don't know if that is ALL their profit). In any case, the lucky are paying for the unlucky with the expectation that they will benefit if they switch categories.

Second, consider the statistic that for the average person, 80% of the medical expenses they have for their entire life comes in the last two years of their lives. Sure, there are exceptions, but this appears to be true, and it makes considerable sense. We eventually get some disease (or just plain general decline) that kills us, but before we go, we spend a bundle.

Third, consider that at some point in the past (I forget how far back this is, perhaps 50 years, perhaps further), people would generally live only an average of five years past retirement. Therefore, employer health care was nearly the same as health care for life, as life generally didn't extend much beyond employment.

Fourth, many of the diseases that used to kill us quickly, either kill us much more slowly, or not at all...though at a great cost. Cancer used to be an automatic, and prompt, death sentence. Now, it may still kill you, but you will live longer (at great cost), and for many types of cancer, you will persist long enough to die of some other cause. The same is true for diabetes, AIDS, MS, Parkinsons, and many other things.

Fifth, this trend of extending life through medical advances (at great cost), is going to continue and get worse.

Therefore, the insurance model completely fails for health care. In all other kinds of insurance, the lucky pay for the unlucky. In the case of health care, we are ALL unlucky...eventually. Therefore, the actuarial tables should show that if a person is to be covered by medical insurance for life, the chance of death is 100%, and the chance of major medical costs is nearly as high. So what should the monthly charge be?

As an example, consider a friend of mine. This friend makes somewhere around the median income for Americans. His wife had a terrible pregnancy, where the baby was born months early, but even that was only because the mother was in the hospital in intensive care for a month or two. A few decades back, the baby would have died, and the mother would probably have died, as well. One hundred years ago, both would have died. Now, both are alive and reasonably well. However, to put it lightly, my friend and his wife have no realistic chance of EVER paying enough into the system to cover what they have already taken out...and that expensive end of life is yet to come for both of them.

The question that I don't have an answer to is whether or not I, or a person in my financial situation (roughly US median income with benefits), will, on average, pay in more than they take out? Even if I WILL probably pay in more than I receive, as medical technology advances, there will surely come a time when the median income person does NOT.

Isn't this an impossible spiral? As our ability to extend lives through costly medical intervention increases, won't it become increasingly hard for anybody to pay for medical coverage? It may be that the lowest 30% of incomes currently has no realistic chance of paying in as much as they will receive over the course of their lives, but as technology advances, that will increase to the lowest 40%, then 50%, then 60%, etc.

We already have socialized medicine, as Homer pointed out. True capitalism would say that if you can't pay, then you get no service, and this country doesn't allow that by law. If you can't pay...well, then the rest of us do. So we shouldn't be concerned about socialized medicine, we are already there, and probably are not willing, as a society, to tell people to just go off an die because they don't have enough money. Instead, both sides are talking about ways to squeeze more care from existing dollars. The difference is how they want to go about it. The differences appear to be a matter of speed, to me. The Dems want to move faster, the Reps slower, but neither one seems to be mentioning that neither alternative will ultimately work, with one exception:

Some of the policy makers (I think Obama used the line, but he didn't originate it) have said that if we don't do something about health care, then it will eat our economy. Frankly, it appears to me that it will eat our economy even if we DO do something, the current debate is just trying to find a means to put off that date.

I see no reason to think that this trend is survivable. At some point, we will have the technology to keep people going for a considerable time, but the cost will be prohibitive.

That's my argument, poke some holes in it.

Well Shaggy, that was a very good mathematical model. I would throw in some variance though as such that many higher-income earners pay more in monthly premiums as they shoulder the cost for lower income earners in a private pool.

I know executives at my company pay far more than some one who makes $100k/year. That's just how the pool is funded, as a company wants to be able to offer the best health care package, and they need to pay for those costs some where, and let's face it, the middle and lower wage earners can't shoulder that cost.

The second variance I would throw in would be accidental / sudden death. Obviously, if a person pays insurance premiums for 30 years and then hits a tree with his car, there are no expensive surgeries for the insurance company to pay. A sudden stroke that kills does not require hospitalization or surgery, it just happens too quickly.

Now, at some point, if the insurance company sees too much money flying out of the accounts, this is what they do:

1) NEGOTIATE LOWER PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS
2) DELAY PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS

Of course, as you point out, none of those two options will make up for the heavy burden the baby boomer generation is going to place on the cost of premiums in the private health insurance industry.

But at the end of it all, the private US capitalist healthcare system is able to pay for more research and development toward the goal of advancing health care technology worldwide.

"In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.[4][6]. The amount of financing by private industry has increased 102% from 1994 to 2003.[20] Most medical research is privately funded. As of 2003, the NIH was responsible for 28%—about $28 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry.[21] The National Institutes of Health play a larger role in funding basic research.[citation needed]

The top five U.S. hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country.
"
There was also a thing in there about more than half of Nobel prize winners for medicine being American doctors , but since Al Gore won a Nobel prize, I hesitate to use that as a measure of success.

Well Shaggy, that was a very good mathematical model. I would throw in some variance though as such that many higher-income earners pay more in monthly premiums as they shoulder the cost for lower income earners in a private pool.

I know executives at my company pay far more than some one who makes $100k/year. That's just how the pool is funded, as a company wants to be able to offer the best health care package, and they need to pay for those costs some where, and let's face it, the middle and lower wage earners can't shoulder that cost.

The second variance I would throw in would be accidental / sudden death. Obviously, if a person pays insurance premiums for 30 years and then hits a tree with his car, there are no expensive surgeries for the insurance company to pay. A sudden stroke that kills does not require hospitalization or surgery, it just happens too quickly.

Now, at some point, if the insurance company sees too much money flying out of the accounts, this is what they do:

1) NEGOTIATE LOWER PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS
2) DELAY PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS

Of course, as you point out, none of those two options will make up for the heavy burden the baby boomer generation is going to place on the cost of premiums in the private health insurance industry.

But at the end of it all, the private US capitalist healthcare system is able to pay for more research and development toward the goal of advancing health care technology worldwide.

"In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology.[4][6]. The amount of financing by private industry has increased 102% from 1994 to 2003.[20] Most medical research is privately funded. As of 2003, the NIH was responsible for 28%—about $28 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry.[21] The National Institutes of Health play a larger role in funding basic research.[citation needed]

The top five U.S. hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country.
"
There was also a thing in there about more than half of Nobel prize winners for medicine being American doctors , but since Al Gore won a Nobel prize, I hesitate to use that as a measure of success.

The math is easy (we'll assume the employee stays at the same company or moves to a different company with the same insurance company for simplicity sake):

Employee pays $100/mo.
Employer pays $800/mo.

Insurance company receives $900/mo for 12 months = $10,800 annually.

After graduating college at 21, the employee works for 44 years until retirement when government Medicare kicks in at age 65.

$10,800 x 44= $475,200

.8 x 475,200 = $380,160 to pay for medical expenses in the last two years of said insured person's life.

Which leaves $95,040 in medical payments ($2,262 / yr) in the previous 42 years to which the insurance company can pay out.

Let's say at age 31 the insured goes rock climbing and falls breaking his arm, costing him $15,000 in medical expenses. Even with that from $95,040, he'd still have to use $1900/yr in medical expenses to use up his payment in premiums.

So, if the insurance company takes only 1 to 2 percent of the insured's pool for profit, it is still a good financial model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Actually you do the math. It would be cheaper if we paid all healthcare expenses for the entire country of new zeland

NZ Population: 4,327,091

---

Feel free to go ahead and pay NZ's medical bills :thumb:

That population figure does not include sheep so ergo is completely wrong.