Next Pres. Election and Health Ins.

[gozzie]

Since I'd like to retire before age 65, I am concerned about health care during those years before medicare kicks in. DW and I have health conditions that are not serious but don't fit the underwriting standards of insurance companies. (Another problem is not being entirely candid about medical problems on the application, because although you may be accepted, you'll have a claim denial if they find it later.) Why doesn't the government underwrite the care of chronically ill patients, who consume a lot of health care dollars? I believe this is the case now for everyone with end stage renal failure (dialysis) regardless of age. This would help insurance companies underwrite risk better and keep their costs down. The quid pro quo would be that the companies could not "cherry pick" customers. All they could be is charge more by age, which seems fair. The govt. should assign a case manager to every seriously chronically ill patient to see that these people had the most appropriate, but not necessarily the most expensive, case available. And why, as a society, do we require that people who are obviously dying be treated with expensive drugs and interventions? It reflects our unwillingness to face death and the greed of the health insurance injury and trial lawyers. (think John Edwards, the cerebral palsy king).

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Why doesn't the government underwrite the care of chronically ill patients, who consume a lot of health care dollars?

Does this question mean that you would be in favor of the gov't giving free care only to sick people who can't qualify for insurance, while the rest of Americans pay the taxes to support the program AS WELL as buy their own insurance since they can qualify?....or, should we all just skip buying insurance, and then just wait till we can't qualify, knowing the gov't would pay for our care.

 

[FinallyRetired]

Since I'd like to retire before age 65, I am concerned about health care during those years before medicare kicks in. DW and I have health conditions that are not serious but don't fit the underwriting standards of insurance companies.

So just keep working until you're 65, or use the "friends and family" plan. What are you, un-American? Here's a link to HR 676, the proposed bill that's causing panic in the insurance industry that it might pass with this Congress or with the next Pres.
H.R. 676 - Home

John Conyers has a good summary of it in his site.
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Federal Information Page

I'm neither advocating or criticizing this specific bill, just pointing it out.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

So just keep working until you're 65, or use the "friends and family" plan. What are you, un-American? Here's a link to HR 676, the proposed bill that's causing panic in the insurance industry.
H.R. 676 - Home

Soon - this is exactly the kind of plan that frieks me out. Here's a quote from the article:

"18,000 people die every year in Ameica because of no health insurance. We must act NOW! Please help..."

Has anyone done any research to find out exactly how many people within single payor systems die while on a waiting list or suffer needlessly? I've posted several videos depicting just a few cases, but what are the real numbers? I've looked and looked, but I can't find any published data. The Fraser Institute, an advocate of private healthcare systems in Canada, has stated that the Canadian gov't is very squemish about publishing the numbers, because they know it will make their system look bad in the eyes of the public. I can't find numbers from any other countries either. How many billion people are in America? Isn't something like 4 billion?...and only 18,000 people die because they don't have health insurance! That is an incredibly low percentage of the overall population!
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][/FONT]

 

[Moemg]

We don't require people who are dying to be treated that's what living wills and hospice are for . I don't think it's the greed of the insurance or the lawyers sometimes it's just the ( and I don't mean to offend anybody ) physicians inability to give up on a hopeless situation especially if it's a younger person .So they will order test after test and treatment after treatment until they finally give up or the family says enough .

 

[JustMeUC]

How many billion people are in America? Isn't something like 4 billion?...and only 18,000 people die because they don't have health insurance! That is an incredibly low percentage of the overall population!

There are 300 million Americans, not 4 billion...LOL

If one of those "only 18,000" were one of your family I bet that they wouldn't be an "only"

 

[mykidslovedogs]

There are 300 million Americans, not 4 billion...LOL

If one of those "only 18,000" were one of your family I bet that they wouldn't be an "only"

Sorry - I didn't look up the American population stats before posting...you are right...I don't want anyone to die either - especially a family member...but that wasn't my point. My point is - What percent of populations in single payor systems die while on waiting lists? I can't find the data anywhere, but I would be willing to bet it's equal to or higher than the percent of Americans who die because they don't have health insurance.

I would prefer to live in a system where there is a lower probability of one of my friends or family members dying because of lack of access to care. In America, IMO, access to care is better when it comes to life threatening illnesses...particularly cancer and other debilitating health conditions that require high tech services and the care of a specialist.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There are 300 million Americans, not 4 billion...LOL

If one of those "only 18,000" were one of your family I bet that they wouldn't be an "only"

Oh dear god. Bless you for quoting that, otherwise I'd have missed it.

Pretty much sums up the rough approximate accuracy of the 'data' supplied by the insurance troll.

Four billion, 300 million...close enough.

One biased source reporting information from a survey? Solid fact in ever situation.

A couple of inaccurate scary talking points all rolled together? Policy.

 

[HFWR]

How many billion people are in America?

302,434,762

 

[mykidslovedogs]

302,434,762

Thank you for the correction! Now, I can actually come up with a percentage. I didn't have time to look for the actual number.

...as if cute and fuzzy has never said something stupid in his life before, either.....y'all completely missed my point. So....... .0000595 of our entire population die because of a lack of health insurance.

Now - in a single payor system - what is the probability of dying from cancer while waiting for an MRI/surgery? Or dying from heart failure while waiting for cardiac surgery? ...or dying from chronic pain (suicide) while waiting to get hip or knee surgery? Cute and Fuzzy - since you obviously are highly intelligent and I am a complete idiot, why don't you provide these statistics for the board.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

as if cute and fuzzy has never said something stupid in his life before, either

Nothing that stupid. Even when I was 7.

.....y'all completely missed my point. So....... .0000595 of our entire population die because of a lack of health insurance.

Presuming the rest of your "stats" are correct, which they arent. I dont think anyone cleanly defines how many people die as a direct cause of a lack of health insurance. Your "fact" is a product of an insurance company driven 'study' designed to make the lack of universal health care a non-problem.

Neither do these "studies" define how many people enjoy untreated illnesses for years or decades because they have no choice.

But do go on in the dual effort to minimize the problem that nearly everyone else understands, while concurrently inflating the population by orders of magnitude.

Frankly, I'd rather read some more of hosucs posts, or even a couple of pages of john galt telling us how great he is at spending his wifes money.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Nothing that stupid. Even when I was 7.



Presuming the rest of your "stats" are correct, which they arent. I dont think anyone cleanly defines how many people die as a direct cause of a lack of health insurance. Your "fact" is a product of an insurance company driven 'study' designed to make the lack of universal health care a non-problem.

Actually, it was Martha who posted the "18,000 people die from lack of health insurance statistic" not to long ago on some of the other threads about health care reforrm. (18000 divided by 302,434,762 = .0000595).

I can't remember where Martha got the figure, but I think it was from the Commonwealth site......But you didn't criticize it when it came from her post.

So again, what percentage of people in single payor systems die while on waiting lists? We can't do a good apples to apples comparison until we have the actual number.

 

[gozzie]

I had a brain hiccup. I meant to say the health industry, not health insurance industry. And as a defense lawyer, I disagree that plaintiff's lawyers are part of the problem. I see a lot of cases where old, sick people have died and a suit has been filed claiming that more could have been done to save them or extend their lives. And yes, health directives would help, but many people won't or don't sign them.

 

[HFWR]

...as if cute and fuzzy has never said something stupid in his life before, either

I am neither cute nor fuzzy...

Frankly, I'd rather read some more of hosucs posts, or even a couple of pages of john galt telling us how great he is at spending his wifes money.

Can you say "thorazine"?

 

[HFWR]

PBS-Healthcare Crisis: Who's At Risk?

Who pays for the rising costs of health insurance? Employees, consumers and taxpayers pay. Businesses pass along a portion of rising premiums to their workforces in the form of lower wage increases. Companies add the cost of the fringe benefits, including health insurance, to the price of their products and services. Government programs pay 47 percent of the health care tab in the U.S.; spending on health care makes up 20 percent of the federal budget, and most state budgets too. If you paid $5,000 in taxes last year, around $1,000 went to health care programs.

Healthcare Crisis; Healthcare System Deteriorated

Lack of insurance is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States.

Why the healthcare crisis won't go away | csmonitor.com

US healthcare costs have reached $1.6 trillion a year. That's 15 percent of the nation's economy, up from 5 percent in 1963. Other industrial nations devote less than 10 percent of gross domestic product to healthcare.

The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It - The New York Review of Books

Specifically, American health care tends to divide the population into insiders and outsiders. Insiders, who have good insurance, receive everything modern medicine can provide, no matter how expensive. Outsiders, who have poor insurance or none at all, receive very little. To take just one example, one study found that among Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those without insurance were 70 percent more likely than those with insurance to die over the next three years.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I didnt criticize the figure because I probably didnt read the thread at all. I gave up on the health care threads for a while because they were consistently trolled into the ground and any interesting or useful information was generally pounded into the noise band.

In retrospect, ignoring them seemed a good strategy.

I dont need to spend a lot of time playing with 3rd and 4th level details. I already understand the problem and having waded through the miasma of health care over the last few years, already know it needs fixing.

We need preventative and remedial care for everyone. Health care costs must be better controlled. People ripping money out of sick peoples wallets need to be taken out of the equation.

The rich wont like it. The people currently "getting theirs" wont like it.

I'm sure the same situation came about when we implemented social security and socialized public education.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I didnt criticize the figure because I probably didnt read the thread at all. I gave up on the health care threads for a while because they were consistently trolled into the ground and any interesting or useful information was generally pounded into the noise band.

In retrospect, ignoring them seemed a good strategy.

I dont need to spend a lot of time playing with 3rd and 4th level details. I already understand the problem and having waded through the miasma of health care over the last few years, already know it needs fixing.

We need preventative and remedial care for everyone. Health care costs must be better controlled. People ripping money out of sick peoples wallets need to be taken out of the equation.

The rich wont like it. The people currently "getting theirs" wont like it.

I'm sure the same situation came about when we implemented social security and socialized public education.

When it comes right down to it, I agree with you on every point. I too think it would be wonderful if everyone had acess to preventive and remedial care....and it wouldn't even be that difficult to pay for that from a tax standpoint....in fact, I would favor a solution that included those benefits. It's not the preventive and remedial care that is costing our country a fortune....it's the drugs and expensive tests and equipment...and expensive doctors and overutilization....all combined with people being, for the most part, sheltered from all of those costs.

Where we disagree is that I believe the profit motive improves access and quality where it really counts and that's with complicated, chronic and life threatening illnesses. Because when it comes right down to it, we really need access when we are really, really sick. Not emergency kind of sick - or sore throat kind of sick..or even broken arm sick....single payor systems do great with that....I'm talking about SICK with cancer, heart disease, parkinsons, alzheimers, endocrine diseases....degenerative, painful diseases requiring the expertise of a highly specialized doctor.

Where we also disagree is that I think people have to have at least some personal responsibility for the cost....whether it be in the form of premium or deductible or both. Granted, I am not opposed to coverage on a sliding scale, but those that can afford it MUST have some responsibility. It can't just be "free"...that would result in a disasterous shortages of care.

 

[Beststash]

Since this seems to be insurance vs. government healthcare debate - where do the doctors fit in?? I find it amazing that the insurance companies have access to private records in order to maximize their profits but private citizens have virtually no access to performance statistics of hospitals or doctors for certain procedures. In today's world, your "coverage" depends on what your insurer approves, your treatment decisions depend on the insurer - let's face it healthcare is not the issue - money is.

I would like to see a single-payer system run by the government with access to information about performance available via the Internet to anyone interested.

We are being held hostage by big business and they are calling it healthcare. As I said healthcare is not even their prime consideration.

Peace

 

[Meadbh]

Thanks, Soon.

You're correct about the rewards being proportional to the altruism one is committed to. In a way, those like myself have been subsidized by taxes and contributions to enable us to care for the indigent without personal penalty so it's not all as charitable as it might have sounded. And there are plenty in private practice who render no-pay care to the poor in limited amounts.

Anyhow, care for all segments can be done well and should be done universally in my view. The current system is shameful and embarrassing.

My US training introduced me to the word "indigent", a degrading epithet which I am very grateful that I never need to use.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

My US training introduced me to the word "indigent", a degrading epithet which I am very grateful that I never need to use.

Meadbh - you seem like a very kind and compassionate soul, and I can see why the work "indigent" care would bother you....especially coming from a place where equality is the rule and not the exception. I assume you are from abroad from your previous comments, although I am not sure where you are from. I am sure that you have also seen that "indigents" are able to get care in the USA, albeit through pro-bono services, even though they are "indigent". What do they call someone in your neck of the woods, when they are stuck on a waiting list and can't afford private care?

 

[Zipper]

Meadbh - you seem like a very kind and compassionate soul, and I can see why the work "indigent" care would bother you....especially coming from a place where equality is the rule and not the exception. I assume you are from abroad from your previous comments, although I am not sure where you are from. I am sure that you have also seen that "indigents" are able to get care in the USA, albeit through pro-bono services, even though they are "indigent". What do they call someone in your neck of the woods, when they are stuck on a waiting list and can't afford private care?

She's Canadian, and like me would not trade our system for yours in a heartbeat.

The bottom line is, if you lived in Canada you would have to get a real job and become a productive member of society.

 

[Martha]

HFWR, thanks for the links. One gives a good explanation why the "consumer driven" model will do little to help problems with our health care delivery system and cost.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

PBS-Healthcare Crisis: Who's At Risk?

Government programs pay 47 percent of the health care tab in the U.S.; spending on health care makes up 20 percent of the federal budget, and most state budgets too. If you paid $5,000 in taxes last year, around $1,000 went to health care programs.

This was a very good figure to throw out there. It shows that America does, indeed, already have a hybrid system. The gov't spends 1/2 the healthcare dollars, but they can only afford to pay for about 1/4 of provider's salaries. If we go to a fully gov't controlled system, with all else being equal, providers would have willingly agree to lose 1/2 of their pay.

Healthcare Crisis; Healthcare System Deteriorated

Lack of insurance is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States.

Based on the criticism I get for the links I post, I'm surprised that no-one has criticized the above link as "biased"...oh yes....bias is OK as long as it favors the majority opinion.

Why the healthcare crisis won't go away | csmonitor.com

US healthcare costs have reached $1.6 trillion a year. That's 15 percent of the nation's economy, up from 5 percent in 1963. Other industrial nations devote less than 10 percent of gross domestic product to healthcare.

We can cost - control too. Anybody can. When a gov't puts a cap on spending, that's how much is spent....and no more, even if someone wants to spend more. These figures are meaningless. The only thing they represent is how much the market is willing to pay for the services they want.

The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It - The New York Review of Books

Specifically, American health care tends to divide the population into insiders and outsiders. Insiders, who have good insurance, receive everything modern medicine can provide, no matter how expensive. Outsiders, who have poor insurance or none at all, receive very little. To take just one example, one study found that among Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those without insurance were 70 percent more likely than those with insurance to die over the next three years.

Yes, New York has done a fine job of resolving the healthcare crisis in their state! I believe that single payor systems also create insiders and outsiders. Insiders are at the top of the waiting list and outsiders are at the bottom. With regards to cancer statistics, take a look at how the USA stacks up against other countries:

ACS :: Study Compares U.S. and European Survival Rates

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Feb2001/OntarioMRIBacklogGrowsBy12000.html

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The bottom line is, if you lived in Canada you would have to get a real job and become a productive member of society.

Whoo...you oughta change your name to "Zinger"...

 

[mykidslovedogs]

She's Canadian, and like me would not trade our system for yours in a heartbeat.

The bottom line is, if you lived in Canada you would have to get a real job and become a productive member of society.

Zipper, have you ever had a serious health condition that required you to be placed on a waiting list?