Thai
Elite Member
:nono: And national healthcare has worked so well in so many other countries, right?:toilet:
We are screwed...
- Thread starter JeremyH
- Start date
:nono: And national healthcare has worked so well in so many other countries, right?:toilet:
Our country currently has health care that is provided to all. Emergency care is denied to NOONE!
Again, I will say, this reform has NOTHING to do with "care"....it is ONLY about insurance. "Health Care Reform" is a term used by the government and media to tug at the heart strings of Americans.
Because of the privatization of our health care, we have some of the most advanced technology in the WORLD. Just like any other capitalist system, competition only makes the product better for the consumer!
004Gunner
New member
Emergency care and health care are not one and the same.
I know this current bill is about reform. I think it's potentially a step in the right direction, as the current system does not work well. Many are left with no health care and I myself have had to make very precarious plans regarding my schooling and work to ensure I had adequate coverage.
There are plenty of countries with equally advanced equipment. I have worked in more than 1 hospital here in America that does not operate the most advanced equipment available. In fact, there is plenty of equipment that I have used that is outright inferior and dated.
SeattleMike
New member
It's not even about insurance. It's about political power. If it were about insurance, they would have passed some simple regulations and called it a day. If it were about the delivery of health care to those people who are not currently covered, they could have amended Medicare to allow a "buy-in" for those who want basic coverage, and a subsidy to those who can't pay.
But they aren't doing the least required to achieve those goals, they are doing the most possible to consolidate power within the Federal government. We are no longer a federal republic, we are now a socialist democracy... no matter what the Constitution says.
004Gunner
New member
Overall, I think it may work in favor for the majority. Some countries have better systems than others and I can't imagine how difficult it is to compare. Link to opinions. The advantage we Americans have is that so many other countries have taken on National Health Care that we can use their systems to model our own.
I know that they are not....but you seem to have been confusing the two. Most people seem to think that it is OK to visit the emergency room for a cold....which is a waste of resources. IMO, people deserve, at a minimum, emergency care at no cost (if they can not afford it), but they need to purchase insurance for other services (or pay for them out of their own pockets). Again, you say that many are left with no "health care"....you are wrong. Many are left with no "health insurance" (actually, the figure is only 15% of Americans). And a LOT of those choose to not accept it from their employer or not to purchase it for themselves if they are self employed.
As for technology, of course we have inferior products sometimes (that's how it goes when you are developing technology...not everything works out), but our country is a leader when it comes to the development of new technology.
I work in Radiation Oncology and use a machine that is developed and manufactured by an American company....this company dominates 75% of the world market for this field. They produce a good product and have the service to back it up. They are located on the Stanford campus.
I did not say that other countries didn't have advanced equipment.....I said that our country and our capitalist medical system creates a LOT of this advanced technology. You can believe that if the government was in charge of health care (and this time, I mean the "care") that they would research new technologies like a private company would. Private companies have the best motivation of all.....money! They will work HARD to create new technology and the best product!
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
Wow....that is quite biased. Define the terms "satisfied" and "dissatisfied". Most people would claim that they are "dissatisfied" when they have to wait 30 minutes to see the doctor. Yet, they don't understand that the reason that they waited was because the previous person asked 50 questions. It wouldn't be right for that doctor to walk out stating "time is up".
Also, are they "satisfied" with the cost or the care?
That is a vague poll....
This has NOTHING to do with the government or the insurance providers and would not change if health insurance is reformed. This is because that facility became complacent with their services. For a facility to make the most profit, it MUST stay on top of advancing technology. After technology has been around for a while, Medicare and other providers start to drop reimbursement for those charges. To maximize profits, a facility needs to keep up with the changing times. If they don't, then they will fail as a business.
004Gunner
New member
I agree that insurance and care are different. I should've specified that the issue was "affordable health care". Affordable health care is a much bigger issue than just "health insurance vs. no health insurance". Now the technology issue, there is a large disparity between hospitals and regions regarding the availability and use of the most advanced systems. A national health care plan could help to close this gap.
It is an opinion poll. And being vague is precisely the point. It's just simple questions asked of those that can answer based upon experience. Nothing more.
theizzardking
New member
i find two faults with this, what happens is people without health insurance go to the ER for a cold, as like you said the e.r. won't turn them away, and whats wrong with making a bill that's on the up and up instead of all of this back door shell game b.s., and why not ease the burden on the e.r.'s by letting people go to clinics before things get bad or instead of going to the e.r. for a headache or cold, remember the whole stupid swine flu thing, how many people went to teh e.r. instead of the clinic due to health insurance issues? i'm willing to bet a ton, it's a well known fact that illegals use our e.r.'s like walk in clinics, first those bas****s should be deported, but if not that then at least send them to the right place as i'm paying for it anyways, i'd rather pay an illegals walk in doc bill as opposed to his e.r. bill.
i went in for a elective surgery a few months ago and asked before hand if i was going to be responsible for any of the payment or if insurance was going to cover it, as i don't have a bunch of money just laying around and wasn't going to get a mole/growth removed if i had to pay for it, it was non life threatening and really nothing more then a vanity thing, so i had a 20 min long conversation with the front desk and my insurance company (other end of her phone) they all said i was fine and good, then i got a $600 bill in the mail a few weeks after the procedure, turns out that since they saw i had good insurance/good job they charged me more then previously mentioned, there were no complications no extra visits, it was billed as per our prior verbal agreement but the amounts had be changed, makes me wonder how often this happens and how many people even notice such things.
again i was responsible and asked questions before the procedure and everything sorted out and boom i get screwed, and no good reason as too way, they simply told me that's what it cost. i'm not saying i should get stuff done for free, i'm just saying it's b.s., it's like going into wallmart and picking up an item from the shelf for 5.99 then getting to the cashier and all of the sudden it's 59.99 just becuase of the cut of your jib or the color of your credit card.
also the whole thing on medicare, my girl turns people away daily becuase the doc won't take medicare , he can't charge them enough, and insurance companies don't follow medicares lead not by any means, and that's part of the problem, they charge what they can get from the insurance companies.
i don't see how anyone can be against standardizing all of this, how can it be the same exact procedure at the same hospital, same doctor and can cost different amounts to different people? this happens every day.
maybe your hospital or clinic isn't like this but the majority are, that's why there's even a conversation about fixing things, from the arguments you guys are making it sounds as if nothing is wrong and everyone gets treated and no one has to worry about losing anything due to a health problem,
that's just not true
and the whole thing about being sent to collections is wrong, what you guys don't get is there is a far larger number of private hospitals and clinics across the country then public ones, nothing wrong with that we are a capitalist society after all, but as i was saying in previous posts that with privatization comes a liability and some ground rules must be set, just like anything we wouldn't have child labor laws if some sort of basic ground rules are set.
would you trust a private police force in your community? how about black water ? you know what i'm saying, the government does have a function and a place and only to a certain extent.
as far as this being a power play, bullhockey, do your really think the dems (the people who passed this) are looking good right now? they are in for fight
come election time becuase of this bill, there is no way i'm going to buy that this was passed for political favor.
you can also argue about taking money (the government) from our pockets and sticking it in corporations pockets, but i find that hard to believe as well
since it's usually the republicans that are all about giving money to corporations or helping big business and not a single one voted for this.
health care reform has been needed for almost 20 years now, if the republicans really wanted this they would have tried to come up with something back in 1993 when the dems first tried this, instead they shut them down without even a vote and it went untalked about for another 10 years or so,
it's good this has been done one way or another,
or i'll put it like this, we got the motor to turn over now we just need to adjust the carbs and timing and get it running right.
trust me i'd love to believe that none of what i'm describing happens, but i have been there and seen it happen enough times, to know it's not just the odd person, it's an actual problem and needs to be addressed.
the one thing i cannot say from personal experience is that they will take your house, but putting a lean on the home and all of that is just as bad,
like i said i was a dead beat for a while, i have had jobs from working on a demolition crew being the only legal citizen,pizza delivery, women's supplemental insurance sales,bar tender,grip on t.v. commercials, janitor,SAR, and tool design engineer to name a few, and have been sent to collections more then a few times, been threatened to be sued, had wages garnished, and all of the rest in my life, the only thing that hasn't happened is me losing my house and ect, i never let things get that bad. it's only in the last 8 years or so i managed to start sorting my life out and all of that.
point is, i don't think really any of us commenting on this have ever really let it get that bad, i mean i was screwed there for a while, somehow i got my first credit card when i was 15 and had an apartment, i really screwed myself bad at that age and it has taken me years of working to fix it all, from those experiences i can honestly say i know what it's like not eating for a few days so you can pay your light bill and can only imagine what it would be like with a 100K medical bill over my head and not being able to work.
again i have never received any sort of help from the government and i take great pride in that, i would go hungry before food stamps and all of that.
please accept my submission of this novel.....lol
First, "affordable" is a relative term. Also, when you refer to "affordability"...are you referring to the price of the procedure or the price of the insurance? If it's the price of the procedure, are you referring to what it billed or what is reimbursed? Second, it is up to the person's EMPLOYER to seek out a good health insurance provider and negotiate a decent contract. If you are not happy with your current health insurance plan, then YOU need to speak with your employer and get them to negotiate a new one! Now, if our government would remove regulations imposed on insurance providers and allow them to compete for business across state lines, then only the consumer would benefit.
As for availability of technology....the equipment is out there. It is up to the hospital/clinic to purchase it. This will NOT change with the current health insurance reform.
Then it is absolutely meaningless. When making a comparison, you need to be specific!
It sounds like the MD that she works with has struck a deal with these insurance companies. He's scratching their backs and they are scratching his. This only hurts the end user.theizzardking said:
It costs money to deal with Medicare patients. My company has invested the time and resources to accept a wide variety of patients with a wide variety of insurance providers and it has paid off.
The reason they look bad is because they are begging and pleading to get this passed. They are cutting deals and holding closed door meetings and even trying things like not holding a vote to get this bill passed. They have NOT listened to the majority of Americans on this subject....and THAT is why they look bad.theizzardking said:
Last edited:
Uneek
Super Moderator
I'm glad Thai and JeremyH brought up points about how medical bills are paid and most it is written off.
I only recently knew about this when my cousin was speaking with an injury attorney. The attorney said depending on the settlement amount issued by an auto insurance company. If the attorney fees are at the point where the client doesn't get anything, the attorney will negotiate with the hospital on the medical bills and most of the time pay about 50% of it and reduce a bit of their fees. This way the client still gets some settlement.
I know Kaiser has a grievance process, if you're treated and can't afford the bill.
I only recently knew about this when my cousin was speaking with an injury attorney. The attorney said depending on the settlement amount issued by an auto insurance company. If the attorney fees are at the point where the client doesn't get anything, the attorney will negotiate with the hospital on the medical bills and most of the time pay about 50% of it and reduce a bit of their fees. This way the client still gets some settlement.
I know Kaiser has a grievance process, if you're treated and can't afford the bill.
theizzardking
New member
backroom deals? i saw a 5 hour long televised debate over it, and it's funny that the republicans didn't have a single idea, not a god dam one, and that's why we are eating this, if they would have been like no, that's wrong this is how you do it...... they might have gotten somewhere and this particular bill would be different from what it is now, but that wasn't the case all i hear is old skeleton bones mc cain and other republicans stone walling and not offering anything in return. my opinion is this needed to be done and if it's no way or a crappy way, i'll take the crappy way at least i still get to where i want to go.
and why are people acting like the reconciliation process is all new?
"Reconciliation came from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974"
this is not new by any means and has been used by both parties numerous times, in numerous ways.
and why is everyone outraged over this but not the lose of habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 , when it was a true loss of liberties, back then only a few people were pissed...
i just think the reds are great at propaganda and that's why everyone is acting like it's the end of planet earth as we know it, i can give a crap who comes up with a idea or who implements it, i just care if it works and if it's a good thing, we as a nation need all think like this instead of pointing fingers, politics will always be politics on certain matters , but this, the health care industry is a commodity and a machine, we should be able to figure all of this out with just some good math and basic common sense, but since that will never happen and has never even been purposed by either party on this case i will go with the group actually trying to do something.
why wouldn't the Republicans write a health care bill of their own and let the people vote on which one they think is better?
they are just as much the problem as anyone else, refer back to my first post about how we need a citizen government again.
and why are people acting like the reconciliation process is all new?
"Reconciliation came from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974"
this is not new by any means and has been used by both parties numerous times, in numerous ways.
and why is everyone outraged over this but not the lose of habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 , when it was a true loss of liberties, back then only a few people were pissed...
i just think the reds are great at propaganda and that's why everyone is acting like it's the end of planet earth as we know it, i can give a crap who comes up with a idea or who implements it, i just care if it works and if it's a good thing, we as a nation need all think like this instead of pointing fingers, politics will always be politics on certain matters , but this, the health care industry is a commodity and a machine, we should be able to figure all of this out with just some good math and basic common sense, but since that will never happen and has never even been purposed by either party on this case i will go with the group actually trying to do something.
why wouldn't the Republicans write a health care bill of their own and let the people vote on which one they think is better?
they are just as much the problem as anyone else, refer back to my first post about how we need a citizen government again.
what regulation? name the bill.
I am not talking about reconciliation. Read:
House Democrats weigh controversial rule in health care vote - CNN.com
Reconciliation has been used in the past for MINOR budgetary bills.....NOT MAJOR bills. In fact, Clinton tried to use Reconciliation in the past to rework health "care"....but he was not allowed because reconciliation was meant for budgetary bills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
Last edited:
theizzardking
New member
yeah but the money has to come from somewhere, right, it's not like they just decide to charge less, that write off comes from my tax dollars,increased premiums, and all of the rest, could your company stay in business if every 3 or 4th person was charged at 50% off or 80% or whatever other numbers you guys are saying. of course not so that means me and you pay the rest of that persons bill one way or another, so why not make this above board instead of backroom deals with doc's and insurance companies and lawyers in the first place, your cousin had to hire a lawyer to get what was right, why is that? why did he get 50% off, does that mean they charged 50% too much to start with? you see what i'm saying, just make it law so we know what the f is going on.
it's not like they wave a wand and that extra money for the procedures just disappears, or am i wrong?
You aren't seeing the point. EVERYTHING in a capitalist economy is negotiable. If you don't like the cost, then negotiate a different cost or a payment plan. Hospitals are no different. They would much rather collect some money than NO money...
The sad thing about this is that Medicare is the group "requiring" that a patient pay off his debts to the hospital. The government is complaining about the health care providers when IT is the one causing the problem.
004Gunner
New member
This is actually one of my biggest complaints with the current system. My employer is a businessman, not a health care professional. An employer is going to pick whatever plan is most beneficial for the company. One that is affordable for the employer, and provides just enough coverage to be a decent plan for a person without pre-existing conditions and overall good health relative to age. An employer has no right to dictate what plan I can choose for my health insurance and how much I pay. I would be willing to sacrifice more in terms of monetary gain, whether it be through higher premiums or higher taxes, to remove this powerful negotiating chip from all employers.
You're right, it doesn't seem that any of this would change with the proposed reform. This is just another reason why I would like to see a standard set for health care on a national level.
This ties back in with the affordability. What is affordable? My definition is different from your's, which is likely different from your parents', which is likely different from your neighbor's, and so on. This is the value of opinion polls and drawing on data taking from various regions. I might consider something to be affordable if I can pay for it without sacrificing any other purchases I consider standard over the course of a month, such as grocery expenses and cell phone bills. My parents may consider something affordable if they can pay for it by sacrificing another expense deemed unnecessary, such as cable tv. While yet my neighbor may consider something affordable if selling a second vehicle in the household would cover the cost of whatever new service or product is acquired. These are all examples with varying impact on a household and the only way to determine what is considered "affordable" under these given households is to ask opinions because it is a relative term.
Ha! So, you think that the people selling the plans to your employer aren't businessmen? You think the people passing these laws aren't businessmen? You think the people telling doctors how they should treat their patients if they want to get paid aren't businessmen? THEY ALL ARE! None of those people give a damn about your health care....they are only interested in MONEY. That would not be different under this new bill....we'll just be dealing with a different group of businessmen...and now these are also politicians.
If you want to negotiate your own plan, then, by all means, go ahead. Nothing is stopping you! However, you must realize that you are not going to get as good of a deal as your employer will. It's like the difference between grocery shopping at Whole Foods versus Costco. You get better quality from WF, but it's also more expensive. When you buy in bulk from Costco, you get a cheaper product that is likely of lower quality.
BTW, if your employer isn't trying to negotiate the absolute BEST health insurance plan for his employees, then you need to find a new employer. An employer that doesn't realize that healthy employees are good for his business should not be running a business. My employer provides me with an EXCELLENT plan. He worked hard, went through a LOT of negotiation and found a plan that his employees like and would be beneficial for his company.
Again, NOTHING in this bill has anything to do with health "CARE"....this is only about how the INSURANCE is provided.
Last edited:
