The Return of Hillarycare

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

Oh, you're rattling off a million stats, some of which may or may not be true. Let's assume it's ALL true. So WHAT?? The very last item on your post, talking about "535 individuals" shows that you didn't even read what I had written in my last post. I said that as a retired Federal employee, that I am currently enrolled in the very same system as the system that our Senators and Representatives have. I don't have the figures at my fingertips regarding the number of active and retired Federal employees in this country, but I can pretty much safely state that the number is considerably more than 535."RE-do the math".

So, I take it you don't see a problem with health care in this country. It's not a right, it's only for people who can afford it. So, to Hell with the 50 million or so who either don't have company paid health insurance or who can't afford an individual policy, right? What would YOUR "solution" be? To simply state that there is no problem?

Another thing: You need to lose your condescending attitude about my "really needing to do more reading" on what the thieving bastard drug companies are doing for the "good ol' USA"with r+d, etc. What they are really doing is pushing legal drugs by inventing illnesses and conditions that didn't exist twenty years ago. They are nothing more than legal "pushers."Prozac and Ritalin are two examples that immediately come to mind. You're delusional if you don't think money is what matters to them more than the general quality of healthcare. What do you suggest we do with people who are too old or too poor to "fit in?" Just let 'em "pay or die", I suppose....

I know all about federal employees and their insurance, I turned down two federal jobs, one of my best friends worked for the feds for years and recently quit. I know all about it...

Everyone already has access to these same health plans, I can call up Blue Cross Blue Shield and get the same plan the government gives their employees. I just have to pay for it, I can get insurance from a variety of sources if I choose to pay for it, whats the problem?

[6SpeedTA95]

As for the 50 million uninsured its a smaller % of the population that it was under Clinton, so I'd say things have gotten better.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

As for the 50 million uninsured its a smaller % of the population that it was under Clinton, so I'd say things have gotten better.

Thanks, that says it all. Things have gotten better. The wealthiest country in the world, 50 million people who are uninsured, you've got yours and if somebody can't afford to pay three or four hundred bucks a month for their own insurance, that's THEIR problem. There's no problem in the health care syatem, everything's fine. Go back to sleep.

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

Oh, you're rattling off a million stats, some of which may or may not be true. Let's assume it's ALL true. So WHAT?? The very last item on your post, talking about "535 individuals" shows that you didn't even read what I had written in my last post. I said that as a retired Federal employee, that I am currently enrolled in the very same system as the system that our Senators and Representatives have. I don't have the figures at my fingertips regarding the number of active and retired Federal employees in this country, but I can pretty much safely state that the number is considerably more than 535."RE-do the math".

So, I take it you don't see a problem with health care in this country. It's not a right, it's only for people who can afford it. So, to Hell with the 50 million or so who either don't have company paid health insurance or who can't afford an individual policy, right? What would YOUR "solution" be? To simply state that there is no problem?

Another thing: You need to lose your condescending attitude about my "really needing to do more reading" on what the thieving bastard drug companies are doing for the "good ol' USA"with r+d, etc. What they are really doing is pushing legal drugs by inventing illnesses and conditions that didn't exist twenty years ago. They are nothing more than legal "pushers."Prozac and Ritalin are two examples that immediately come to mind. You're delusional if you don't think money is what matters to them more than the general quality of healthcare. What do you suggest we do with people who are too old or too poor to "fit in?" Just let 'em "pay or die", I suppose....

You're right, I don't believe healthcare is a right. It's a service to be purchased. However, for a sense of humanity I will support bare minimal help for the poor, uninsured and disabled... but I'm not going to encourage overburdening tax payers or support the destruction of capitalism to give 100% of the 'underprivileged' healthcare. I'm a realist. Feel free to call me cold, I'm a future healthcare professional and certainly want to help people... but not at the expense of others.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

Thanks, that says it all. Things have gotten better. The wealthiest country in the world, 50 million people who are uninsured, you've got yours and if somebody can't afford to pay three or four hundred bucks a month for their own insurance, that's THEIR problem. There's no problem in the health care syatem, everything's fine. Go back to sleep.

No insurance? Ever heard of medicaid and medicare? You go to the ER with anything thats a real emergency and they will treat you.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You might, but if you're wrong you'll feel pretty stupid

I guess it's good that you're honest in that you don't remember much of anything you're talking about.

I love being enlightened...please, feel free. I'd love to enlighten you with what I do for a living, but then again, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway.

Let me guess. You push pills for Phizer?

[6SpeedTA95]

Everyone already has access to these same health plans, I can call up Blue Cross Blue Shield and get the same plan the government gives their employees. I just have to pay for it, I can get insurance from a variety of sources if I choose to pay for it, whats the problem?

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No insurance? Ever heard of medicaid and medicare? You go to the ER with anything thats a real emergency and they will treat you.

Have you ever heard of the ER keeping, say, a cancer patient there for a month, running tests and performing chemotherapy treatments? Has anyone ever told you that medicare doesn't kick in until you are in your 60s? Or that there are conditions that neither Medicare nor Medicaid will cover? Of course not, because you've obviously never considered those things. Try thinking out of the box.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

Have you ever heard of the ER keeping, say, a cancer patient there for a month, running tests and performing chemotherapy treatments? Has anyone ever told you that medicare doesn't kick in until you are in your 60s? Or that there are conditions that neither Medicare nor Medicaid will cover? Of course not, because you've obviously never considered those things. Try thinking out of the box.

Medicare kicks in at reitrement until then there's medicaid, you supposedly worked in the medical industry you should know this. No it doesn't treat cancer, which sucks, but again how do you propose this government healthcare option be given to all citizens if they can't afford to pay for it?

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ethyl

You're right, I don't believe healthcare is a right. It's a service to be purchased. However, for a sense of humanity I will support bare minimal help for the poor, uninsured and disabled... but I'm not going to encourage overburdening tax payers or support the destruction of capitalism to give 100% of the 'underprivileged' healthcare. I'm a realist. Feel free to call me cold, I'm a future healthcare professional and certainly want to help people... but not at the expense of others.

OK, you're cold.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Medicare kicks in at reitrement until then there's medicaid, you supposedly worked in the medical industry you should know this. No it doesn't treat cancer, which sucks, but again how do you propose this government healthcare option be given to all citizens if they can't afford to pay for it?

Medicaid is only for the poorest. And as you correctly state, it doesn't cover cancer, or many other serious conditions. Most people are neither rich or poor, so they either can't qualify for medicaid or can't afford to pay a $50,000 medical tab, which a condition like cancer can run up in no time. I know this for a fact, because I lost my wife to cancer in '88, ended up going bankrupt even though I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield at the time.I found out then that even if one is insured, you had better read your policy, or you WILL be left holding the bag. That's when i started paying attention to reality.

I'll give you an example of how the FEHB plan works, my own example. I currently have Aetna, a participant in the plan. It costs me about $95 a month, or about 1/3rd of total premium. The government picks up the rest.Every year there is a new "open season". During this time, an enrollee can study other plans and change from one plan to another, as benefits and premiums change every year. That makes the insurance companies more competitive within the system. The Aetna plan is an HMO, with a $20 co-pay for dr. visits, a $750 maximum co-pay for hospital stays, $10 co-pay for generic drugs, and a $3000 catostophic (out of pocket limit) expense per year. I think it's a damned good deal.

I believe that this system could work across the board, on a "sliding scale". The poor would pay less, the wealthy more. Uncle Sam would pick up the difference, and it could be financed similar to the way social security has been financed, through payroll deductions. It wouldn't be mandatory, but would be available to anyone. When you consider the costs of medicaid, for example, a plan like this would probably be more cost efficient, and would cover more serious medical conditions like cancer.

Now, I'm sure this idea will be shot full of holes, called "socialized" medicine, whatever. That's OK, because before long this whole issue of health care reform WILL be addressed, because the citizens of this country will demand it. Our legislators are either going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Recognizing that there IS a problem is a beginning.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

Medicaid is only for the poorest. And as you correctly state, it doesn't cover cancer, or many other serious conditions. Most people are neither rich or poor, so they either can't qualify for medicaid or can't afford to pay a $50,000 medical tab, which a condition like cancer can run up in no time. I know this for a fact, because I lost my wife to cancer in '88, ended up going bankrupt even though I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield at the time.I found out then that even if one is insured, you had better read your policy, or you WILL be left holding the bag. That's when i started paying attention to reality.

I'll give you an example of how the FEHB plan works, my own example. I currently have Aetna, a participant in the plan. It costs me about $95 a month, or about 1/3rd of total premium. The government picks up the rest.Every year there is a new "open season". During this time, an enrollee can study other plans and change from one plan to another, as benefits and premiums change every year. That makes the insurance companies more competitive within the system. The Aetna plan is an HMO, with a $20 co-pay for dr. visits, a $750 maximum co-pay for hospital stays, $10 co-pay for generic drugs, and a $3000 catostophic (out of pocket limit) expense per year. I think it's a damned good deal.

I believe that this system could work across the board, on a "sliding scale". The poor would pay less, the wealthy more. Uncle Sam would pick up the difference, and it could be financed similar to the way social security has been financed, through payroll deductions. It wouldn't be mandatory, but would be available to anyone. When you consider the costs of medicaid, for example, a plan like this would probably be more cost efficient, and would cover more serious medical conditions like cancer.

Now, I'm sure this idea will be shot full of holes, called "socialized" medicine, whatever. That's OK, because before long this whole issue of health care reform WILL be addressed, because the citizens of this country will demand it. Our legislators are either going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Recognizing that there IS a problem is a beginning.

Ahh, thanks for answering the question Now here's my take tell me where I'm wrong...

If government picks up the tab for those who can't afford to pay then is that not going to give government undue control over the industry? "Do it our way or we'll pull the funding for these 15 million people and give it to XYZ instead of ABC" The government thne has the ability to strong arm the industry into making little or no profit as well as engaging in price regulation. These types of price regulations will not be imposed directly on the doctors as is in socialized countries but it will be indirectly imposed on the same people by forcing insurance agencies to only pay X amount for a procedure. Well if all these companies have a big dependancy on the federal government then it would seem to me that they would indeed have to cave to the demands of the government thereby forcing the doctors to accept these indirect price controls. This would greatly hamper progress in the medical community as well as create a doctor shortage, am I wrong?

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Ahh, thanks for answering the question Now here's my take tell me where I'm wrong...

If government picks up the tab for those who can't afford to pay then is that not going to give government undue control over the industry? "Do it our way or we'll pull the funding for these 15 million people and give it to XYZ instead of ABC" The government thne has the ability to strong arm the industry into making little or no profit as well as engaging in price regulation. These types of price regulations will not be imposed directly on the doctors as is in socialized countries but it will be indirectly imposed on the same people by forcing insurance agencies to only pay X amount for a procedure. Well if all these companies have a big dependancy on the federal government then it would seem to me that they would indeed have to cave to the demands of the government thereby forcing the doctors to accept these indirect price controls. This would greatly hamper progress in the medical community as well as create a doctor shortage, am I wrong?

No, that seems to be the great propaganda tool that the drug companies and other special-interest obbyists like to use to think that the government is going to control every company that participates. It hasn't EVER worked that way in the FEHB program, and I don't see where expanding it into the general population would change that. The government doesn't regulate prices, services, or premiums, and never has, since I've been involved in the program. What happens is, the insurance companies become more competitive and innovative. It's still the basic supply and demand "free-market" deal as ever. The way it SHOULD be with every other government contracter. Of course, Halliburton is an exception, but that;'s for another thread.

To get back to the insurance options: Aetna has this year for the first time offered a "consumer driven" plan which pays the first $1000 per calendar year. Then, the insured pays the second $1000. If the insured doesn't use the original $1000, it's rolled over into the next year as a credit. That's what I mean by innovation. There are also high deductible plans, etc. In short, the government is goving these companies free reign-to compete with each other for the consumers' business. Point is, this is NOT "socialized medicine" at all. I'm not advocating a Canadian-style, "single payer" plan, even though that seems to work alright for the Canadians.

Finally, another great myth about a national plan of any kind is that everybody would be "forced" to enroll in one big national plan. That's not the way it would work.People would still be free to purchase their own private health insurance. They can still even do that in Britain, btw. The difference is, companies wouldn't be required to insure their employees, making them much more competitiive with foreign companies, like the Japanese auto manufacturers for example.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

No, that seems to be the great propaganda tool that the drug companies and other special-interest obbyists like to use to think that the government is going to control every company that participates. It hasn't EVER worked that way in the FEHB program, and I don't see where expanding it into the general population would change that. The government doesn't regulate prices, services, or premiums, and never has, since I've been involved in the program. What happens is, the insurance companies become more competitive and innovative. It's still the basic supply and demand "free-market" deal as ever. The way it SHOULD be with every other government contracter. Of course, Halliburton is an exception, but that;'s for another thread.

To get back to the insurance options: Aetna has this year for the first time offered a "consumer driven" plan which pays the first $1000 per calendar year. Then, the insured pays the second $1000. If the insured doesn't use the original $1000, it's rolled over into the next year as a credit. That's what I mean by innovation. There are also high deductible plans, etc. In short, the government is goving these companies free reign-to compete with each other for the consumers' business. Point is, this is NOT "socialized medicine" at all. I'm not advocating a Canadian-style, "single payer" plan, even though that seems to work alright for the Canadians.

Finally, another great myth about a national plan of any kind is that everybody would be "forced" to enroll in one big national plan. That's not the way it would work.People would still be free to purchase their own private health insurance. They can still even do that in Britain, btw. The difference is, companies wouldn't be required to insure their employees, making them much more competitiive with foreign companies, like the Japanese auto manufacturers for example.

I think the competition argument is a great argument and probably the strongest argument for something like this.

Still though the problem is as I see it the government would definately seek to regulate pricing. The government employees about 15 to 18% of the workforce and covers their insurance costs as a result. Suddenly going from 15 to 18% to probably 90 or 95% puts a LOT more cost pressure on the federal government so I dont think it is a myth especially when you look at literally every country with government run healthcare. I know you dont think its the same and on the surface it isn't, but I fear the end result would be the same due to pricing controls being forced on the insurance providers. Again I could be wrong but given the history of government(s) and healthcare including our own in the medicare/medicaid areas I think it would only be a matter of time.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think the competition argument is a great argument and probably the strongest argument for something like this.

Still though the problem is as I see it the government would definately seek to regulate pricing. The government employees about 15 to 18% of the workforce and covers their insurance costs as a result. Suddenly going from 15 to 18% to probably 90 or 95% puts a LOT more cost pressure on the federal government so I dont think it is a myth especially when you look at literally every country with government run healthcare. I know you dont think its the same and on the surface it isn't, but I fear the end result would be the same due to pricing controls being forced on the insurance providers. Again I could be wrong but given the history of government(s) and healthcare including our own in the medicare/medicaid areas I think it would only be a matter of time.

Hey, at least you and I have proven that discussion can lead to some understanding on issues like health care reform. These ideas about health care have been around for a long time, but I think have been misunderstood for just as long. As I stated before, I started doing my homework on this subject years ago, when it "hit me where I live," big time. I realized then that the average person is just one serious illness away from being forced into the poorhouse. In the richest country in the world, I find this to be totally unacceptable, not to mention obscene. I suspect that the ultimate solution to the health care mess will be a compromise, perhaps starting with what I have suggested on this thread, which, as I said, is pretty much what both Hillary and Kerry have proposed, minus all the propaganda spin from the right.Something will have to be done, and soon. Voters will demand it, as sure as they are now demanding that we get the Hell out of Iraq.I see this as the big issue of '08. If republicans fail to address it, they'll lose for sure-again.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

I just saw a survey which said 2/3 of American people want universal health care. We're the only 1st world country left that doesn't have it. People are starting to realize that lack of health care isn't something that affects only the poor. This has very much become an issue of the middle class. Bankruptcies are routinely due to health problems, even with insurance.

Something has got to give. We can't keep going in the same direction. We'll eventually get some form of universal health care or insurance. It's just a question of when and in what form.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

We're the only 1st world country left that doesn't have it.

Why do people continue to say idiotic things like 'we're the only 1st world country that does this or that' as if we should conform like the rest of the 1st world countries? We're the only 1st world country that does and has a lot of things, many things you and I like. That's the worst comparison ever made.

[TheScatman]

For all the points made in this thread, I think its strictly a morally undefensible point to force other to pay for the health care of others. Anyone care to try to justifiy it?

[JaJae]

The Democrats gain a little power and immediately they start moving towards socialism and putting extremist and corrupt politicians into positions of power. It's going to be an interesting two years.

The Dems have been talking a lot of talk lately, yet I still haven't heard much about a plan for Iraq. All we know is they want to bring troops home. Why is Hillarycare one of their key agenda buttons right now? It failed them a decade ago. There are more serious things to worry about.

This quick move towards socialism worries me. The Republicans were too extreme and started messing up, but at least it was a gradual shift. The Dems seem to be making up for lost time. They haven't even been sworn in yet and they're talking socialist principles. It's interesting they didn't bring this up before elections.