According to the folks at Cover The Uninsured Week there are around 45 million Americans without health insurance. We hear a lot about the pros and cons of trying to establish a national health care system that would guarantee coverage for everyone and the debate about what to do about the uninsured has been going on for as long as I can remember. I haven’t spoke up much about the issue myself because I’m not really sure how to go about solving it. I’d very much like to see some form of national health care for all Americans, but I also understand that the cost could be overwhelming without some serious reforms to go along with it. My apathy was probably helped by the fact that my job provides a pretty decent bit of health care for my family and most of my relatives have got coverage as well.
Today I woke up to news about one of my extended family members who wasn’t as fortunate as I am. My mother called and left a message on my answering machine about a death in the family. Diane, a cousin of mine on my biological father’s side of the family, lost her daughter, Debbie, sometime on Friday. I’ve mentioned before that there was a big age difference between my biological father and my mother which means that my cousins from my father’s side are also older than I am such that Debbie, a first cousin once removed, and I are the same age. I didn’t know Debbie all that well and only met her a couple of times that I’m aware of, the last of which was at my mother and step-father’s 25th wedding anniversary some five or so years ago. She had attended in the company of my Uncle Clyde and I remember her as being very upbeat and fun.
I called my mother back to see if there were any more details and that’s when I learned how Debbie had died. It wasn’t a bad car accident, as I had assumed, or a long term known condition such as a weak heart or cancer. Debbie was killed by pneumonia. That’s right. An easily treatable disease that is normally semi-serious to people our age only if left untreated. Debbie had been sick for awhile with what she believed to be the flu, but she never saw a doctor for it because her family didn’t have health insurance and she couldn’t afford to pay for the office visit herself. Her husband is working a newspaper delivery route that doesn’t offer benefits and I believe she was unemployed. Her kids were at home with her when she died. They called 911 first and then they called Diane who tried to talk them through CPR until the paramedics arrived, but it was to no avail. Debbie was gone before the paramedics ever walked through the door. Apparently Debbie never recognized just how ill she was as she never asked her mother for help. Diane says had she realized how sick her daughter was she would have given her the money to go to the doctor, but Debbie assured her she was OK. She wasn’t OK and she ended up drowning in her bed because she couldn’t afford an office visit.
When I heard this I was stunned and angry. My heart breaks for Diane as I can only imagine the pain of second-guessing yourself over the death of your child. So too for Debbie’s husband and kids. I barely know these people so my sense of loss wasn’t immediate with the first phone message, but it hit home once I learned the details of what happened. This sort of story probably happens many times every day in a nation with 45 million people living without health insurance and that’s just insane.
We are one of the richest countries on the planet and the government seems to be able to magically pull trillions out of our collective taxpayer asses when they need to fight a war over weapons of mass destruction that don’t really exist, but the moment someone suggests we invest in health care for every American there’s suddenly not enough money in the world to pull that off. Seems it’s always a lot easier to find money to destroy lives than to save them. Any one of us could end up in Debbie’s shoes. If I were to lose my job tomorrow then I would be in her shoes. My sister already is in her shoes. It’s inexcusable in this day and age with as well-off as the country as whole is that anyone should be unable to get at least basic health care. There’s gotta be a way to make it work.
The question is: How many more people have to have it hit close to home before it shakes enough of us out of our apathy to do something about it?
Health insurance in the United States is regulated. Typically, the employer purchases the health insurance plan at a group rate. The employer picks up most of the tab and the employee pays the remainder. While the coverage is in effect, you may not be dropped for too many claims under the policy. When the group plan comes up for renewal, what is likely is that there will be premium increase if there were a substantial number of claims that required extensive medical care. The stickier issues center on whether a condition is a pre-existing condition under the terms of the policy, and whether the course of treatment sought is necessary.
Regarding the denial of claims, one does have options should they choose to exercise them. The recourse one has is different depending on how the policy was purchased. If an individual purchased the policy themselves (not through their employer, but as an individual plan) they may sue the insurer directly for a denial of coverage. If the individual receives insurance through an employer plan, then federal law (ERISA) governs. ERISA requires that there must be an appeals process if a dispute arises regarding the necessity of treatment. If the individual still remains unsatisfied after exhausting the administrative remedies, suit may be brought. Damages under ERISA are not as extensive as may be had by the individual who purchased the insurance policy.
I hope this helps to clarify the matter for you.
Gronker,
I really think you missed the point of Les’ original post. It struck me that what Les was arguing, and to which I agree, is that people shouldn’t have to make medical decisions based on financial considerations. You should decide whether you want to go to the doctor or not based on how you feel versus on how much you can afford. Cost shouldn’t be a limiting factor for receiving care when you need it. Besides considering the cost of even relatively minor procedures, such as an appendectomy cam cost upwards to $9000, I don’t think giving up your cell phone, rims and cable TV really would make that big of a difference (when those things added up might cost you $500-700 in a year, unless your suggesting that people should save up huge medical care nest-eggs in case they ever really get sick). As for private medical insurance, in most cases if you don’t get the discounted group rates it is fairly expensive, and the treatments available are limited. These are all non-concerns when it comes to a public system. Anything that there are facilities for can be done for anyone. For example, if I get a rare form of cancer I’m not going to die without treatment because I’ll cost some company too much, if there is a treatment available, I will get that treatment and I don’t have to worry about paying for it. Public systems are way superior to private system in every measure except wait times (but that’s just a sign that there are a lot of people who are getting medical care in public systems who aren’t getting it in private systems).
This is pretty much not true. Public systems do cover more people but with inferior care. The medical profession is no more immune to the free market than any other profession. The more motivation there is to excel, the more people do in fact excel. If you paid doctors what you pay teachers, most of the folks that are docs now would be in other professions.
The same (correct) arguments made about drug companies and profits work for healthcare in general. If there is no financial incentive for innovation and progress, none will happen. No one will invest in the companies doing the work. Few, if any, of the great minds needed to do the work will choose to work in the industries. Great minds will always gravitate to where the rewards are.
There is a reason that a vast majority of the new drugs and medical procedures are produced here, in this country. There is a reason that none of the wealthy in countries with socialized healthcare use their public systems. They use private healthcare in their countries or, more often, come to the USA.
Interestingly, I think we have become victims of our success in many ways. 90% of the healthcare provided uses about 10% resources. It’s that AMAZING 10% that costs so incredibly much. Ailments that we could do nothing for 20 years ago, we can treat with some success, albeit very expensively. And it is those costs that insurance companies are forced to spread across all their insured customers.
We spend $100,000 a day to keep a 4 month premature baby alive with a slight chance of survival. We all foot the bill for these heroic efforts in higher insurance rates, higher taxes, and higher hospital costs when the hospital has to recoup the loss from non-payment for these services. No one is willing to cull this kind of thing from the general insurance pool, so we all pay.
If insurance companies were allowed to only cover the 90% majority of procedures, you would see affordable healthcare, even to those not covered in large group policies. People could then cover that other 10% with a different high risk policy or self insure to some extent.
At some point in the near future, we will easily be able spend 100% of our GDP on healthcare. As we live longer and we get more and more esoteric procedures to try to extend life longer and longer, this problem will only get worse. I guess it’s a good problem to have, but its going to take a realistic approach at some point.
And the idea of this decision in the hands of Government makes my skin crawl.
I spent 12 years in the military (with no health coverage concerns) and the last 3 making enough money that coverage has never been an issue. As a young, single, healthy male insurance rates were fairly low. Now, my wife is in the military and I once again have ‘free’ coverage. Because of this, I’ve been slow to awaken to the extent of the problem.
Over the last two years or so, friends of mine in the medical profession and members of my immediate family have begun to grow increasingly frustrated with health care and the ever-rising cost of insurance. I THINK that this would probably be the largest issue (especially in election years) if we weren’t caught up in the endless “War on terror.”
The problem certainly isn’t funds…we already commit more money per capita than any other country to the problem. I’m just not sure how that spending needs to be adjusted to achieve better results.
How much of the spiraling costs are a result of unhealthy lifestyles and the American desire for a “silver bullet solution?” In other words, “Give me a drug so I lose weight” rather than, “How can I lead a healthier life?”
I don’t think the solution is as simple as nationalizing health care. It goes too strongly against the grain of Americans and my experience with the military system has left me with serious doubts regarding the efficiencies of such a system.
I also don’t think there is a single solution that will fit the entire country easily enough. Instead, I think states need more power to develop programs tailored to fit their populations. This would also allow states to learn from each other. The drawback to this idea is that the conservative notion of “lower taxes at all costs” prevents states from raising taxes enough to implement such programs.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think higher taxes in general really accomplish all that much…but at SOME level, government has to collect revenues and provide the sinews of society. If we have decided, as a nation, not to do that at the federal level, then we need to start seeking lower level solutions (state, county, city…).
This is not borne out by health statistics or by my experience. Millions of Americans get inferior care while a few get care that is assumed to be the standard. Not only do we spend more per capita on helath care than any other nation, but we spend it on a much narrower band of the citizenry and get less (in aggregate) for it.
Someone mentioned appealing denial of coverage. Ever try suing an insurance company? Good luck, low-wage exhausted sick single mom with kids.
Prickley Pear and Socialist Swine got it right.
Yes, quite a few times.
Tell me, Gronker, do you have insurance coverage? Or is having your head up your ass considered a “pre-existing condition”?
Les’s relative did NOT have a choice. When you are that sick with pneumonia that it’s capable of killing you, you are in terrible pain, can barely breathe, and can barely move. If she could have afforded to go to a doctor without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars for treatment, x-rays, hospitalization, and medication, she would have. It’s not like she had a fucking hangnail.
Do you have any clue how much insurance premiums cost when you don’t have an employer to pay for them? Do you know how often people get denied coverage even if they can afford hundreds of dollars a month for insurance?
I’ll give you a clue for free: cable TV PLUS rims PLUS whatever you consider to be “discretionary items” are STILL a hell of a lot cheaper than insurance premiums, especially if you don’t expect to be sick. If you’re making a survivable income but not much above that, insurance is the last thing you’ll pay for (renter’s, health, life, auto) because it’s either pay for something you might never need or pay for other things you could really use NOW. When you can’t afford both, you tend to pay for what you’re going to get the most use out of.
My cousin’s husband works as a hairdresser. He never paid for health insurance because he wasn’t overweight and didn’t have any chronic health problems, and he didn’t have the financial luxury of paying hundreds of dollars a month just in case he got a head cold sometime.
He had a massive heart attack late last year out of the blue. You see, most people think that thin = low risk, and that’s not the case. As a result of this miscalculation, he and his wife are now up to their ears in debt. He wouldn’t have qualified for Medicaid, but he couldn’t afford treatment either. This is where the middle class ends up: squeezed between unaffordable alternatives.
People who are well off can afford to insure themselves against any and all possibilities, both literally and figuratively. They can save more money, can afford to invest (and ride out the occasional losses), and can even make one-off expenditures if they really need them.
Those who are living on the edge are at the mercy of every ill wind that blows their way. Now, you can whine about having your money “stolen” to help those people, but you should be thanking your lucky stars that you HAVE money to spare. Money equals choice. Money equals opportunity. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking everyone has the same options that you do.
Consi:
So it would appear that you are a lawyer?
This litigious attitude is not healthy or productive when one is ailing. The stress of having to take on another battle when your primary battle (survival) is at stake serves exactly whom? The insurance company hopes you GO AWAY, the lawyer says “just pay me and I’ll see what I can do”, and, in the meantime, you negotiate with your tumor to stop growing until we can see who will foot the bill….Yowzers, give me the social medicine model.
Appearances can be deceiving.
I’m not advocating litigation. Only, that there are remedies and recourse already available for those who so choose.
Regards,
Annnnnd….?
Did it HELP any?
I’ll refrain from the ‘told you so’ yet. You may have won a couple times for all I know, but I don’t think so.
Even if so – you surely realize that suing takes TIME. A sick person usually can’t simply wait until the matter has cleared up, especially if he/she can’t even be sure of getting redress.
And all this is onyl IF the person has insurance. Try suing the government for not providing help…
No, thanks. Mandatory health insurance for any kind of legal work may be one of the reasons we have such high cost of employment (if thats the correct English term) here in Germany/Europe. But its a sensible thing nonetheless.
I was surprised by some of the reactions to this entry. As a native of sunny old England, I am used to living with a free health service, and have obviously been taking its benefits for granted. We British do a fair amount of moaning and bitching about the NHS (actually, we do a fair amount of moaning and bitching full stop, particularly about the weather), but at least I know that if I’m feeling even a fraction as bad as Les’ relative must have been (so sad, by the way) I can go to the doctor without worrying about the effects on my rather over-stretched pocket. Yes, some of our taxes go towards paying for the NHS – but I’ve always believed that this was part of the ‘sharing’ that our parents told us about as children.
And speaking of children, all those out there that resent the idea of paying a small percentage of your income to fund a free health service – which you would also be entitled to use, by the way – and have justified this by claiming that the recipients are not working hard enough, so don’t deserve your help, what about the families who are having to choose between taking their sick child to the doctors, or putting food on the table next week? Should the child suffer, because their parents are out of work?
I don’t know, I guess it’s just different cultures. It just seems to be all “get get, grab, grab, I worked for this money so it’s mine all mine”. I just think that there’s more to life, and that part of belonging to a society involves contributing to looking after all members of that society. One day you might need that kind of help too.
Gronker,
This isn’t the case according to a study published in Medical Affairs (an American medical journal). In the study (Hussey, et al. (2004) “How Does The Quality Of Care Compare In Five Countries?” Health Affairs 23(1): 89-99.) of the five countries compared (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, US) the United States scored the lowest for quality of care and survival rates in all cases except mycardial infarction, in which Canada did poorest (this was because the treatment modality used in Canadian hospitals was outdated, I think the issue has been since addressed). Moreover, the United States is the only of the countries to have private medical care. It seems from the study that in general public or mixed health care systems perform much better than fully private systems. When medicine isn’t done for profit, there’s less corner cutting, and less attempts to do things as cheaply as possible. As such quality is higher in public or semi-public systems.
P.S. The system that had the best results was that of the UK. The British system, as Missy points out, is a public system like Canada’s. Canada also did quite well placing third after Australia (which has a mixed system that while offering full public services also allows for private health care providers to take excess load off the public system. I should also note that the insurance system in Australia is public and, according to the Australian government at least, covers all Australian citizens, though private insurance is allowed as well but not required).
I have written and rewritten my response to you, GeekMom, to try to soften my words and comments. However, in the end, I decided you didn’t deserve the effort. You don’t know me but were more than willing to attack me. That makes you un-pull-punch-worthy.
For the record, I do not have insurance. As an independent contractor, I have to purchase coverage, not from any group pool. I pay for catastrophic coverage for my son and wife, but my sleep apnea makes me basically uncoverable. I have considered taking a safer job just for the medical coverage, but have fought the urge.
My head is not up my ass, I don’t think she had a fucking hangnail, I have plenty of clues, I am not whining about my money being stolen and I don’t make mistakes about other peoples situations—you self-righteous bitch. Its people like you that make reasoned debate about hard, real-world questions like this damn near impossible.
Your assumptions about my situation is indicative of the knee-jerk reaction by those on your side of this (and many other) issues. Just because I personally would benefit from something doesn’t mean I think it’s the right thing to do. I’m not that shallow or weak.
Les’s relative did NOT have a choice. When you are that sick with pneumonia that it’s capable of killing you, you are in terrible pain, can barely breathe, and can barely move.
Another assumption – perhaps you are clairvoyant? I would have hoped that cost would not have kept her from calling the doctor, especially if her symptoms were as you describe. As her husband, you can be damn sure I would have taken her in myself. I don’t know Debbie’s situation and I don’t presume to know her. I don’t feel comfortable using her situation to make my point but I truly hope everyone takes their health seriously enough to go to the doc when they are sick, irregardless of the financial consequences. Not to do so and then bitch about the consequences is pathetic.
He had a massive heart attack late last year out of the blue.
So your assumption is that he would have not had his heart attack if he had coverage? He would have gone in and discovered his condition “out of the blue?
Gronker,
If you’re done with Geekmom perhaps you can try addressing my posts to you. I have presented arguments for the superiority of public health care versus private for profit health care. You have yet to say anything about my arguments.
That said I actually have another argument for private systems. You seemed to suggest that research doesn’t occur in public systems, but that isn’t true. The newest and most effective protocols for brain, stomach, pancreatic, and breast cancer all come from Canada (in fact they come from the med school here in Calgary). Moreover, the majority of the work being done on stem cell therapy for Alzheimer’s and Pakinson Disease are being done in Canada and the UK (now this isn’t so much the result of funding issues as much as conservative ideology that doesn’t allow for novel cell lines).
The most promising treatments for cystic fibrosis are being developed in Canada as well. See you mistaken assume that private companies do the bulk of medical research, but that isn’t the case. The majority of research is done in medical schools, and medical schools benefit from the higher public funding of education that is found in such “socialist” countries as Canada, UK, Australia, Sweden, France, Germany and so on. The US is actually actually losing its lead in medical technology. With decreased public science and medical funding comes decreased amounts of research. Moreover, if you consider the debacles involved with the pain killer recalls (all of which were developed by private firms versus public universities) there seems that there is even more reason to think that medical research is best done by not for profit academic institutions.
Errr… you need to drop Sweden from your list according to this article.
warbi,
I stand corrected, I must admit that I haven’t read much about the recent research in Sweden. Though, it seems that Sweden is taking steps to regain their past eminence in biomedical research. So perhaps it would be too quick to discount them.
Hey, Socialist, that was about the only relevant link I could find on the search engines. I must admit that you have piqued my curiousity though. Could you point me in the direction of some information regarding ranking of countries’ medical research? If not, no problem, since I have had little success!
I found a site that lists numbers of publications in medical journals by country (though that isn’t exactly a fair measure, because most people publish in American and British journals whether they are American, British, or not). It also has a measure of the countries of origin for the articles, that’s a little more fair. However, it still doesn’t account for the impact of the finds, just raw number of published studies. The url is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10352798&dopt=Citation
I’ll see if I can dig up anything else that is accessible to the public.
Yeah, I looked at a site that referenced the government site. There was one that looked promising, but you had to pay for it. This site has some fairly relevant and interesting information:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/chart.asp
The first pie chart shows that 55% of spending for healthcare in the US was private and 45% public (e.g., Medicare IHS, VA, etc…) The second shows where the money was spent. Now these figures were for healthcare itself and not research.
It seems that no one keeps stats on where research occurs. I think perhaps the best way to get a feel for things is just to skim some of the big journals like JAMA, BMJ, and Lancet and see who’s doing the interesting work and see where they’re working.
This is in reference to something upthread a ways, but we once had to sue an insurance company. MrsDOF was injured at work, requiring surgery on both hands. Other than the medical expenses (which they did everything possible to say weren’t work-related) the company wanted to stiff her for lost wages and disability.
Our attorney was a likable, earnest woman in sensible shoes with an old briefcase, a modest car, and an office full of papers.
The insurance company’s attorney wore a $1K suit, Rolex, $500 shoes, and just seemed to glide from place to place.
That miserable predator cross-examined my wife, twisting everything she said, confusing her, made her look foolish and just blew her out of the water. Our attorney shuffled papers and asked a couple questions to establish facts that were on the paper.
As a spouse I couldn’t come to the table at all so I just had to watch as that miserable predator cross-examined my wife, twisting everything she said, confusing her, made her look foolish and just blew her out of the water. Our attorney shuffled papers and asked a couple questions to establish facts that were on the paper.
I know the insurance company paid him more than we were asking for. I felt like asking him: “Is that how you make your living, screwing a baker out of money for a disability caused by your client’s negligence?
I wondered, if I caught up to him sometime and smashed his manicured hands with a sledgehammer for humiliating my wife, would that be considered a work-related injury?
A slightly different case than suing for medical coverage but it was a window for me into how insurance companies think.
Doh! I made a cut-and-paste error. Please ignore the duplicated text. Maybe I should go back to doing actual work now.
DOF, this ain’t gonna convince you of the saintity (or sanity) of insurance companies (I ain’t trying).
But from a purely economic point, it makes sense to pay that lawyer more than what you were asking for. By establishing precedent (both in law and in fact*) they reduce the likelihood of having to pay the next time such a case crops up. In fact, reducing the likelihood of such decisions even being challenged.
*like having such ‘scary stories’ told here. Mind telling the name of the insurance company? At least they should get a little negative press (as such as it is here) from it.
Oh, I understand the economic rationale – they’re not crazy or evil, they’re just making a profit. Profit is fine from cars and beans. It leads to absurdity and tragedy – like Les’ cousin – when applied to medical decisions.
The lawyer was paid by the insurance company to represent the employer. It was a long time ago – alas I don’t remember. They had a nondescript name, something like “Providence Assurance” or “Mutual of Transylvania.”
Last month I became victim to a wrongful firing and have also lost all my health insurance for my children. This is a sore issue with me. As soon as I lost the insurance, I went down to the local DES office to apply for state assistance, AHCCS here. I was refused. The state will not offer my children health care because I own my home. “The home is a liquidatable asset and therefore could provide income to include health care at the close of the sale.”
‘Scuse me?
This week my youngest daughter was inflicted with an ear infection. I ran her up to the emergency room late one night due to her fever reaching 103 degrees. I was panicked!
They turned us away because I had no money for any upfront payment and no insurance!
Home to place the child in an ice bath.
However, while I was at the DES office applying, I found out that an illegal alien is using my 9 year old son’s social security number to recieve benefits from the state (medical, cash, food stamps) and apparently has been for three years.
Yet, my children and I do not qualify.
There is something seriously wrong here.
That sucks dude, somebody dying from such a curable malady as pneumonia. I guess that’s why I have called myself a socialist from the time I was a teenager.
Government owes the people – not people the government.
That’s my coinage, but feel free to quote me.
Wow. I finally got around to reading through this entire thread.
First off, I wish my sincerest condolences to Les for his loss. It simply appalls me that people go around touting how this is the “best,” most “free” country in the world while all the while we have people dying of easily-curable diseases simply because they cannot afford too-expensive healthcare.
Secondly, I must say that I am equally appalled by some of the comments here. I realize that we all have differing views on the functions of our government, and I can respect that. At the same time, however, I cannot help but be a little disturbed by the smug, almost heartless replies by people such as “Gronker” and Consigliere (particularly in the case of the former individual). Attitudes such as theirs are a large problem in our country when they become as widespread as they currently are.
How can we have such a great country if we cannot afford our own health? How can anyone possibly prioritize money over human lives? Why shouldn’t the wealthy pay more in taxes than the less well-off? How would being forced to do so be “immoral” in any sense of the word? I’ve got news for everyone: no one likes to pay taxes, but doing so is the backbone of living in a free country in which our government provides essential services for us. And as long as we’ve got a government, I would much rather see it attending to the needs of the people and their health than to ridiculous bullshit such as “faith-based” initiatives or needless defense/war-mongering.
Finally, Les put it perfectly:
The next few decades will be very interesting.
Exactly, Consi. That, unfortunately, places the value of your money above the lives of the family of our shotgun-toting friend. And, for that reason, he would be just as inclined to harm you and take that money because he realizes that the lives of his family are worth virtually nothing to you by comparison. You don’t agree with his value of his family (your family isn’t worth my money), he doesn’t agree with your valuation of your money (my family is worth your money). I do think that such ideas are problematic to some visions of what society ought to be.
That said, I don’t understand the notion that you can care for anything more than your own life. I find it irrational and backwards. Similarly, it seems natural for me to value me and mine over you and yours, with me, obviously, at the top. Not that I have anything against you, just that I feel I’m entitled to cover my own ass first, and if you suffer in the meantime, so be it.
As for socializing healthcare, it has it’s own set of benefits and drawbacks. I like having a backbone to fall on and I don’t mind paying tax money for it – but having that money routinely frauded from me and the medicine I need is just as bad as price-gouging medicine, and ruthless HMOs. Sexy Sadie, you may want to read into Canadian politics sometime. Social reform ain’t always what it’s cracked up to be. In fact, the CIA Factbook has it generally covered.
Nor do you have the right to come into my house to appropriate greenbacks to pay for the Iraq occupation, the local police force, road construction, the salaries of teachers, weapons research, and so on.
The thing is, as long as we are citizens of this country, we are all subject to Uncle Sam. You or I may not have the right to rob someone else for the purposes of healthcare, but then again you and I are not Uncle Sam, as you put it (correct me if you are, in fact, a politician). You and I are not the ones whose responsibility it is to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the American people.
Also, the wealthy are subject to the exact same government and system as are the poor. As long as we all live in the same society, under the same government, it only makes sense (in my opinion) that we all should be taxed proportionately to our income level. There is nothing “immoral” about such a proposition in my eyes. Furthermore, I think it is fallacious to assume readily that the rich got to where they are due solely to hard work or inheritance, whereas the poor are the way they are because of laze, unintelligence, or poor lifestyle choices.
The truth is that our society is not as open to success and the “American dream” as it has been advertised to be. Perhaps at one time it was, but anymore it simply is not. For one thing, it helps to be white and male. If you happen to not possess these traits, financial success still is very much not in your favor.
So what does all of this have to do with the country’s healthcare crisis? Well, it reinforces my view that things are fucked up. I, for example, do not have health insurance, and neither does John. On the other hand, we both make fairly good money and live relatively comfortably (it’s good enough for us, anyway). There are millions of Americans who do not live comfortably, do not make good money, and who also live without health insurance. Our government can certainly afford to do something about this, and yet it consistently does not.
I won’t pretend to know how to remedy this situation, yet I can tell that the current system is not working.
Agreed that they are all takings Elwed. The question becomes at what point does one stop appropriating others property for what one’s own needs? How much of someone else’s stuff am I entitled to? How much are you?
There are compelling arguments to be made to be sure. Those arguments involve morality plays, which was my point. Because you disagree with me though, unlike the fundies I won’t cast doubt on your morality. And unlike some equally rigid liberals, when you disagree with me, I won’t cast doubt on the sincerity of your heart.
Thank you for disagreeing with me. I was waiting for a post that disagreed to make my point.
Now that we’ve illustrated the unbending, uncompromising rigidity of the modern day liberal, y’all may carry on with your discussion of socialized medicine.
I know I’m a little late to be casting opinions about Gronker, but having taken a couple introductory courses in Econ, the guy sounds a LOT like my econ prof.
His statements embody the shortfall of economic thinking, though. It’s near-impossible to assert that you’ve considered every condition in the working economy in making your decision. Given that, measuring how likely you are to be right requires some awareness of how wrong you are, and that’s just not possible. It’s an excellent system, but I would put the statistics before the idea. I worry with Canada, though, that it’s getting too lenient on how it’s health-care money is spent. The breakthroughs that Socialist Swine mentions are continuing at the UofC today, but that’s a combination of educational funding and talent, where the latter appears to be only partially affected by funding, and manages to work cutting-edge technologies on a shoestring budget. Alas, I’d port a link if I could find the presentation from one of my CPSC profs.
Okay, now I’m really going away. I need to sleep.
Ah, a link to how shoestring research can occur in computer science. By no means a convincing case for medicine, but a suggestion that money isn’t all there is to trailblazing.
“Heartless,” like “appalling,” I would concur is a strong term. Sure, I may have come off as rigid, but as a self-proclaimed liberal it is something that I generally try to avoid doing. Sometimes it’s hard.
While my personal biases may render it difficult for me to sometimes empathize with the conservative viewpoint, I have no doubt that your convictions are “heart-felt.”
And like some very sensitive conservatives, I would agree that anytime our arguments involve “morality plays,” as you put it, things will get a little heated up. No biggie—sometimes a little heat lets us know we’re alive.
I have about had my fill of the “everyone should have medical insurance” at the expense of others !
Firstly, as a retired paramedic I’ve seen my share of the horrors of what can happen to people at the hands of disease, other people, their own hands, accidents by any and all means and non of the above.
Second, where is it written that those that work MUST pay for those that don’t or otherwise ?
Thirdly… socialism is great in theory but in reality IT DOES NOT WORK. NEVER HAS, NEVERWILL.. ITS AN ABOMINATION OF THE REAL WORLD.
Do NOT lay blame at EVERY DAY WORKING people… lay it at the hands of the polticians and the bloated medical community aka the Drug Companies, the AMA and the others that protect their own and don’t give a rat’s ass about the rest of us. When push comes to shove is bloated Teddy Kennedyand the liberal left, or the bible beating right wing and their cohorts and the rest of them on BOTH sides paying for any of us .. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO… but those of us here that get up every day and go to work and pay our taxes and the rest of the crap ARE paying for those that cannot.. from the deserving to the NON deserving.
Get a clue people its not about the working people of this country denying those that cannot pay.. its about the farking ruling elitist that put it on our heads so they are OUT of the loop and free and clear.
adios amigos….isn’t that in Hispanic PC ?
Xxena, I agree with your point about the drug companies being bloated and corrupt, but I want to address a few of the points that you’ve made.
First,
I may be missing something, but where in this thread was socialism seriously brought up? There is a lot of middle ground between wishing to see health care in this country repaired on the one hand and actual socialism on the other. Or do you consider the two issues to be one and the same? I personally would disagree. I don’t think there are a whole lot of true socialists here at SEB.
Second,
Are you seriously insinuating that some people are not deserving of health care? If so, what exactly determines in your mind who is and who is not “deserving?”
All I have to add is that there is a lot of shit my government engages in with the tax dollars I pay that I’m not particularly happy about. Given the choice between having those taxes go to an unjust war against a foreign nation under false pretenses or toward the goal of providing health care to everyone so that we all have the means to stay healthy enough to find a job, I’d choose the latter over the former. Alas, I don’t get a choice in the matter.
Near as I can tell I’ve gotten no benefit from the war in Iraq, just a record deficit and a lot of dead people. I can at least see some potential benefit in helping to ensure that everyone has at least basic medical care available to them so they have one less thing to worry about. No one seems to have a problem with the government “stealing” your money to pay for corrupt wars where lots of foreigners get killed, but man, the moment someone suggests that money could be better spent helping your fellow Americans you get all bent out of shape that you’re supporting people who are “undeserving.”
Taxes to kill lots of people? You’re all for it. Taxes to save lots of people? No fucking way.
That’s just sad.
Consi, nice folksy dancing, if to a tune that’s getting old.
I had time to reread what’s been said before and concluded that everything has been said. Uncle Sam takes money out of your wallet, whether you like it or not. That money is put to some uses you don’t object to, others you (would) oppose. What you agree and disagree with speaks for itself.
Practically speaking, whichever of the two options you support, your dollar gets squandered. It becomes a matter of degrees as to who screws you worse, public or private institutions.
That said, drawing the line between public and private powers, in the era of an unusually rich government, is getting very difficult. Although which you choose to support is telling, I find that deciding how to spend your money is secondary to how you secure it in the first place.
Elwed,
Call me a relic, call me what you will,
Say I’m old fashion, say I’m over the hill,
Today’s music ain’t got the same soul,
I LOVE THAT OLD TIME ROCK N’ ROLL!!!!!!
Still like that a old time rock n’ roll
That kind of music just soothes my soul
I reminisce about the days of old
With that old time a-rock ‘n’ roll
-Bob Seger, Old Time Rock N’ Roll
i read all the different views and i concur that the best way to solve this is take the middle road,the government should (i believe) fund a government owned health insurance co., offer health insurance based on the over all health of the person rather than a group of people, (healthier people getting the lower price). lets say a moderately healthy person pays 30 dollars a month ( just throwing out numbers) and the money that he pays will be a sort of bank. so when some thing occurs where he is sent to the hospital he may use HIS money to pay for the expenses. if there is a large bill that cannot be fully covered by his “bank”then the government will pay 40% of the costs while the person pays the remaining 60%. i think that there are wrinkles in my proposal but that can be ironed out. thoughts?