6 stitches = $800

[LRS]

Then let's debunk the "running to the doctor for a cold" myth too.

Actually, I was in the emergency room last year with my daughter, who'd had a seizure right in front of my eyes earlier that evening (so my ass was covered re. needing to be in the ER). We waited 4 hours in a room full of genuinely quite sick people. Some of them had been waiting longer than us.

One woman had three little kids with her and all of them were coughing. She explained to the ER doctor that she didn't have insurance and she couldn't take her kids to the doctor because she didn't have one and didn't have time to find one because she worked two jobs. The first kid got a cough that lasted several weeks. Now all the kids were coughing and she didn't know what to do.

So she brought them all in after she got off work. And yes, it was a big waste of money for everyone, especially for her, since she had to pay cash. She did get to hear the doctor say that the kids were going to be ok; he was very kind about it and she was relieved. I saw her put her kids on the bus to take them home, so no car in that family.

I guess the moral for her was that she shouldn't have had the kids if she couldn't afford medical care for them and didn't have time to take care of them because she had to work so much. Maybe in the future, families like this will get "what they deserve" and the kids won't get any medical treatment at all. That'll teach 'em.

Eat the poor! Soylent Green is poor people!

 

[Sheryl]

Sheryl: Could you explain how you got hit with such large medical bill?  I understand you got blindsided with an illness earlier this year, but I'm curious as to what happened to your insurance.  I thought insurance was supposed to protect us somewhat from the economic fallout resulting from a catastrophic illness.     This insurance stuff scares me, quite frankly...

Cube - sorry I wasn't clear.     By saying "I incurred" the costs,  I mean that my treatment amounted to that.    In fact my insurance has been great and has paid nearly all of it.

All I have paid out of pocket was a $300 deductible for hospital cost, $15 per visit for about a hundred doctor visits (ok, really only about 18 but feels like 100).   I also pay something for prescriptions - usually a $10 copay I think but it varies incoprehensibly with their formulary.

Sorry to be confusing - my point to Azanon was that if I had "self-insured" I would be behind the curve already and going down fast with future expenses.  And it would be too late to sign on to a reasonable health plan now.

The insurance stuff scares me too -  and others here have given much worse examples.  Run up against one heart bypass and your entire ER stash is going to be gone.  

As Maddy said, we've been here and done this, and I'm sorry I grabbed the troll bait.  

 

[sgeeeee]

Why do you hate America?  Why do you want the terrorists to win?

 

[cube_rat]

Cube - sorry I wasn't clear.     By saying "I incurred" the costs,  I mean that my treatment amounted to that.    In fact my insurance has been great and has paid nearly all of it.

All I have paid out of pocket was a $300 deductible for hospital cost, $15 per visit for about a hundred doctor visits (ok, really only about 18 but feels like 100).   I also pay something for prescriptions - usually a $10 copay I think but it varies incoprehensibly with their formulary.

Sorry to be confusing - my point to Azanon was that if I had "self-insured" I would be behind the curve already and going down fast with future expenses.  And it would be too late to sign on to a reasonable health plan now.

The insurance stuff scares me too -  and others here have given much worse examples.  Run up against one heart bypass and your entire ER stash is going to be gone.  

As Maddy said, we've been here and done this, and I'm sorry I grabbed the troll bait.  

Thank you, Sheryl.

 

[modhatter]

I have one for you. I had to go to the emergency room (as per doctors instructions) for a "clogged butt". One finger up my butt, and ten minutes later, I was out the door. My bill $1,386.00.

 

[LRS]

Did it hurt when they took your finger out? Oh, I see ...

 

[haha]

I have one for you.  I had to go to the emergency room (as per doctors instructions) for a "clogged butt".  One finger up my butt, and ten minutes later, I was out the door.  My bill $1,386.00.

That is likely one malady you could have cured by yourself, or at least with a little help from a very good friend.

Ha

 

[cube_rat]

A "clogged butt". Now there's a first for me.

 

[REWahoo]

A "clogged butt". Now there's a first for me.

I've seen the term used before, although in a slightly different context:

"I removed it [exhaust header] because I noticed it to was turning bright red and figured it was clogged butt after removing it I found no such problem..."

 

[free4now]

This outfit claims to negotiate lower rates for medical procedures with any provider, for people who don't have insurance covering the procedure. It seems they use the same procedures as the insurance companies to get the healthcare providers to agree to lower charges. They take a percentage of the savings as profit.

https://www.mymedicalcontrol.com/

I haven't used them, but it's something that might be useful to pull out of my hat when/if I ever need healthcare that isn't covered by my insurance.

 

[Texas Proud]

I pay for fighter planes that I don't necessarily need/want/use, and defense is 50%-80% of the national budget. We could solve the health care "crisis" for far less.

Way wrong... I saw a couple of nights ago.. 52% of the budget is SS and healthcare... don't know about defense, but I think it is less than 5% now..

 

[Texas Proud]

Then let's debunk the "running to the doctor for a cold" myth too.

Actually, I was in the emergency room last year with my daughter, who'd had a seizure right in front of my eyes earlier that evening (so my ass was covered re. needing to be in the ER). We waited 4 hours in a room full of genuinely quite sick people. Some of them had been waiting longer than us.

One woman had three little kids with her and all of them were coughing. She explained to the ER doctor that she didn't have insurance and she couldn't take her kids to the doctor because she didn't have one and didn't have time to find one because she worked two jobs. The first kid got a cough that lasted several weeks. Now all the kids were coughing and she didn't know what to do.

So she brought them all in after she got off work. And yes, it was a big waste of money for everyone, especially for her, since she had to pay cash. She did get to hear the doctor say that the kids were going to be ok; he was very kind about it and she was relieved. I saw her put her kids on the bus to take them home, so no car in that family.

I guess the moral for her was that she shouldn't have had the kids if she couldn't afford medical care for them and didn't have time to take care of them because she had to work so much. Maybe in the future, families like this will get "what they deserve" and the kids won't get any medical treatment at all. That'll teach 'em.

Eat the poor! Soylent Green is poor people!

A poor place to take your kids for a cough... in Houston, there are a number of free or low cost clinics you can go to if you are poor... and I would bet this lady qualifies as poor...

And this is paid for by the citizens of Harris County... we pay a property tax for the county hospital district...

 

[dylar]

Way wrong... I saw a couple of nights ago.. 52% of the budget is SS and healthcare... don't know about defense, but I think it is less than 5% now..

Once again conjecture triumphs over data. Upthread is a link to the OMB that you might want to look at.

Medicare and Social Security have a mandatory dedicated revenue stream and payouts, and do account for the majority of government spending.

Of the money that Congress gets to spend (the discretionary budget), over 50% is spent on the military. A very nice and extremely large (1.8MB) graphical depiction of this in 2004 can be seen here.

 

[sgeeeee]

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

The Office of the Actuary determines the amount of money used for the purchase of health care goods and services on an annual basis.  These estimates include expenditures as well as the source of financing for these purchases.

Major findings are as follows:  The U.S. spent $1.9 trillion on health care, or $6,280 per person, in 2004.  Health spending rose 7.9 percent in 2004, slower than the 8.2 percent growth in 2003 and 9.1 percent growth in 2002.

The health spending share of GDP grew 0.1 percentage point to 16.0 percent in 2004.  This was a smaller increase in share than experienced in recent years as economic growth in 2004 grew at its fastest rate since 1989

I could cite a number of personal situations that support the idea that our healthcare system often fails to provide reasonable service for reasonable cost.  But it would be easy to criticize my personal experience as nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

The argument so far seems to be about whether healthcare should be considered a national concern and therefore the subject of more government control (like defense, food and drugs, aviation, etc.) or whether it is more like a commodity that should be treated like an item you buy from Walmart.

So I don't know the answer.  But the overall data described above seems to me like an indication that our present healthcare system is not working very well -- or at least not very efficiently.  So forget about why you don't like other people's proposals.  What do you think should be done to improve the system?  

 

[Surfdaddy]

Way wrong... I saw a couple of nights ago.. 52% of the budget is SS and healthcare... don't know about defense, but I think it is less than 5% now..

and

Once again conjecture triumphs over data. Upthread is a link to the OMB that you might want to look at.
Medicare and Social Security have a mandatory dedicated revenue stream and payouts, and do account for the majority of government spending.
Of the money that Congress gets to spend (the discretionary budget), over 50% is spent on the military.

Let's all put the spending in perspective.

First, it is disingenuous to exclude the >50% of the federal budget and then say that over 50% of what's left is defense, in order to make defense look like a big culprit. Since when shouldn't we look at the entire picture? Congress gets to legislate and spend SS and Medicare, too. It's all on the table.

Defense is about 25% of US Federal Government spending. Entitlement programs (primarily SS and Medicare) are over 50% and increasing.

And by the way, something many people have never learned forgotten is that the primary constitutional purpose of the Federal Government is defense of the people. There is no role mandated for retirement or health care.

Of course we can continue to argue whether our defense funds are well spent, but the importance of that expenditure vs. entitlements shouldn't be in question.

I suspect we will eventually need to socialize our medicine. What that's liekly to do is level the bell curve. Today the TOP US health care is the best in the world, yet some people get poor/no health care and are screwed. Nationalized health care is likely to normalize it to a more mediocre level for everybody. If you want the best beyond that, you'll pay big time.

 

[Nords]

First, it is disingenuous to exclude the >50% of the federal budget and then say that over 50% of what's left is defense, in order to make defense look like a big culprit. Since when shouldn't we look at the entire picture? Congress gets to legislate and spend SS and Medicare, too. It's all on the table.
Defense is about 25% of US Federal Government spending. Entitlement programs (primarily SS and Medicare) are over 50% and increasing.

I think it's asking too much for this board to agree on a common definition of defense spending percentage...

... when we can't even agree on a common definition of net worth.

 

[ladelfina]

I think it's asking too much for this board to agree on a common definition of defense spending percentage...

... when we can't even agree on a common definition of net worth.

Nords, you're right on that score! 

Surfdaddy.. it's also disingenuous to say defense spending is only 25% of the budget by including the massive and separate pension/insurance scheme that is Social Security, whose money is earmarked to go right back (more or less) to those who paid in to it.

I haven't "forgotten" what's in the Constitution.
Constitutionally, the gov't. is also supposed to "promote the general welfare"..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice and 'domestic tranquility' come before defense in the list, if that means anything. (Oops.. sorry Katrina folks. the National guard ain't here to help.. they's all fightin' in Iraq.)




P.S., Dylar.. your graphic link gave me a "forbidden" warning!

Once again conjecture triumphs over data.

Excellent!

I saw a couple of nights ago.. 52% of the budget is SS and healthcare...  don't know about defense, but I think it is less than 5% now..

TexasProud, where did you "see" this ?   FIVE percent?!??! Don't you know there's a WAR on, boy? 

 

[HFWR]

We, the people, are forming a government; and, of course, we expect it to promote our general welfare - as opposed to not serving our welfare...

 

[Zathras]

TexasProud, where did you "see" this ?   FIVE percent?!??! Don't you know there's a WAR on, boy? 

Yes, but we are on the offense, not defense (so what is the offensive spending percentage)

 

[Texas Proud]

P.S., Dylar.. your graphic link gave me a "forbidden" warning! Excellent!
TexasProud, where did you "see" this ?   FIVE percent?!??! Don't you know there's a WAR on, boy? 

No problem... I said it was memory.. and obviously it was wrong..

But, saying that SS and health is NOT budget is like saying your house note is not part of your budget since you have not discretionary...

And remember.. they DO have discretion.. they could vote to stop paying SS alltogether...  nothing prevents this..

 

[ladelfina]

But, saying that SS and health is NOT budget is like saying your house note is not part of your budget

If my sister loans me money, and I know I have to pay it back in full, I would be foolish to include that money in my net worth; it's a liability, not an asset. Paying it back would be part of my budget in one way, but in another way I shouldn't think of it as money I can use indefinitely for other things.

At some point I have to be realistic and look at my true financial picture which is my budget without that money, in other words, what I really have available to spend after I pay her back. That's why I don't think it's wrong to look at discretionary spending as a more true benchmark.. it's the money the government chooses to spend freely, not money we have given it under very certain circumstances to hold in safekeeping for us, for pensions and disability only.

If I bought a new car and said "look, I only spent 25% of my income on this car" (not disclosing my sister's loan part of the income), you might say, "ok!". But if you knew that I had really spent 50% or 80% of my income aside from the loan, you'd probably be right in thinking I was a bit foolhardy.

That's where I am coming from..


I guess you're right that the Congress could vote SS out of existence, but they would be taking a big risk.

 

[Zathras]

But, saying that SS and health is NOT budget is like saying your house note is not part of your budget since you have not discression...

And remember.. they DO have discression.. they could vote to stop paying SS alltogether...  nothing prevents this..

Very good point. I really dislike the percentages based on 'discrecionary spending'. They are misleading and used for sound bites in political commercials.

 

[Surfdaddy]

Constitutionally, the gov't. is also supposed to "promote the general welfare".

I'm not disagreeing. But the clear and primary purpose of the Feds in the constitution is defense. If you read the sections, a substantial portion is devoted to discussions about militias, military training, creating a Navy, etc. The other parts of the constitution talk about the branches of government, creation of laws, roles of legislators, taxation, etc.

Even though I don't necessarily agree with all of the military escapades we've been on lately, to say something like "we spend so much money on defense" as if it is an unreasonable activity of the Federal government, is just unfair.

The fact is that defense is only 25% of the spending, we already spend double that on SS and Medicare (health care). Perhaps we should be revamping those programs to more wisely spend the money and cover more people efficiently, rather than complaining about the 25% we spend that is a clear and designated purpose of the government in the first place.

 

[Texas Proud]

If my sister loans me money, and I know I have to pay it back in full, I would be foolish to include that money in my net worth; it's a liability, not an asset. Paying it back would be part of my budget in one way, but in another way I shouldn't think of it as money I can use indefinitely for other things.

At some point I have to be realistic and look at my true financial picture which is my budget without that money, in other words, what I really have available to spend after I pay her back. That's why I don't think it's wrong to look at discretionary spending as a more true benchmark.. it's the money the government chooses to spend freely, not money we have given it under very certain circumstances to hold in safekeeping for us, for pensions and disability only.

If I bought a new car and said "look, I only spent 25% of my income on this car" (not disclosing my sister's loan part of the income), you might say, "ok!". But if you knew that I had really spent 50% or 80% of my income aside from the loan, you'd probably be right in thinking I was a bit foolhardy.

That's where I am coming from..


I guess you're right that the Congress could vote SS out of existence, but they would be taking a big risk.

You must be one of those people who actually think there is MONEY that the government has set aside for your retirement benefits... sorry to tell you... they spent it..

And yes, it would be a big risk... but saying that 'it is my money so they have to pay it back to me' like the example of your loan is just wrong. And let us use your loan example... if you did not pay it back, what could your sister do?? Sue?? But, if you have no money what is she going to get?? The govmt does not have any money... it is something like $8 trillion in debt at the time... it only has the ability to issue more debt or raise taxes to pay off your 'debt'..

And if you really want to get VERY technical.. most of the defense budget is not discretionary... you can only tinker at the edges of what is spent.. most has been committed for various weapon systems that they could not cut... so the TRUE amount of money that congress can argue over is maybe 3 to 5%.. the rest is inertia..

Sorry for the spelling in the earlier post... I knew it was wrong at the time... just had a brain fart and could not think of it..

 

[ladelfina]

Texas Proud, I understand what you are saying about the money not actually being there untouched,  but that doesn't make it right.

Strangely, though, you say "most has been committed for various weapon systems that they could not cut".  Why is money for SS any less "committed"? It's odd to say they can cut SS, but not cut defense.

Look, this is a really good discussion to be having. EVERY voter should be examining these issues and priorities... You're right that if I'm broke my sister won't get her money back. But it's one thing to be broke because I spent the money on bulk rice and beans, or on doctor's bills... and another to be broke because I spent all, 1/2, 25%.. whatever.. on a useless new Hummer. In either case we're both in a pickle, but in the second scenario sis has a right to be majorly p*ssed-off.

Surfdaddy.. ok, maybe the gov't. should never have gotten into the insurance business. That's a fair argument. Imagine that SS/Medicare had never been invented. Then you'd be talking about a "budget" 1/2 as big, of which defense would be 50%!

If we start with that premise, then maybe we can evaluate whether that level is too high, not enough, or just right.. I don't think it's unreasonable to spend for defense, I just think it's unreasonable to spend so much, especially for what we are getting. The anti-universal-health-care folks use the argument of "waste", but often when it comes to defense these same people are not holding Congress' feet to the fire on excessive spending. Apparently it's less bad to waste our $$ killing people than it is to waste it helping them. (sigh.)