We didn't hire a guy where I work today

[Drogba]

Depends on one's priorities, I guess...I must place a higher priority on having health insurance than you do...

People argue that he could not "afford" COBRA, but anybody who works should set aside an "emergency fund" for just such situations...nobody said the choices are easy...and we don't know what this guy's options were - did he simply choose to go without insurance?...why 7 months between jobs?...did he check into any state insurance plans?...look into a high deductible private plan, maybe a Blue Cross plan?...

Let this be a lesson to you all...be self sufficient and self reliant in life...nobody owes you anything...don't depend on the government to provide for your basic needs...and NEVER let your health insurance coverage lapse...

Wow. You really have absolutely no ability to understand the socioeconomics of anyone outside your own do you? Emergency fund for people who can barely make ends meet as it is. Ever heard of the saying "you can't squeeze blood from a rock"? Anyway I hope life is kind to you, even though it means you will continue to pass your baseless, self-righteous judgment on people whose circumstances you have no capacity to understand.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[postbacker]

I'm glad the government provided me with a public school to attend so I can get an education when my father was working at McDonald's and my mother was a maid. Obviously they could not afford private school for me with their wages at that time.

What is your point?

It was decided many moons ago that public education was "part of the deal" in the US...are you suggesting that the government should now also provide free health care to everyone? How about free housing - man needs a roof over his head? Free food - man has to eat? Free cars - man has to get around? Maybe the government should provide all of our basic needs?

 

[novawildcat]

Depends on one's priorities, I guess...I must place a higher priority on having health insurance than you do...

People argue that he could not "afford" COBRA, but anybody who works should set aside an "emergency fund" for just such situations...nobody said the choices are easy...and we don't know what this guy's options were - did he simply choose to go without insurance?...why 7 months between jobs?...did he check into any state insurance plans?...look into a high deductible private plan, maybe a Blue Cross plan?...

Let this be a lesson to you all...be self sufficient and self reliant in life...nobody owes you anything...don't depend on the government to provide for your basic needs...and NEVER let your health insurance coverage lapse...

I don't know if he ever looked into a state plan or not. I barely met the guy, but like I pointed out in my previous post it takes a year or longer in PA to get onto the state plan because of the large amount of demand and limited funds available.

Also, even if he did take out a high deductible plan how would that have guaranteed him coverage under another insurance plan when he finally did find a potential job? Is there some kind of law for that (I don't know)? No job= no health insurance, not able to get covered by company insurance= no job. It is a catch 22.


He was unemployed for 7 months because the industry we are in is absolutely taking a beating right now. Being unemployed for 7 months in the industry we are in is very common. I know some people who have been unemployed or who have had to take temp jobs in our industry for well over a year.

 

[surfstarj]

Glad I helped you see the light!

And I'm glad, too. Extremely glad that the profession I've chosen will partly be populated by inexperienced simpletons like you.

You speak about paying for health care in a tone that just screams a) bitter working class person who "rose above" all adversity to become a comfortable citizen, or b) the child of one. You come equipped with 'airtight' excuses for your refusal to consider that not everyone who is uninsured is a lazy drain just looking to mooch off the government and the solution for those people is not to simply trying harder or making different decisions.

Why enter a career as a physician without compassion? You'd probably make one hell of an underwriter.

 

[postbacker]

Wow. You really have absolutely no ability to understand the socioeconomics of anyone outside your own do you? Emergency fund for people who can barely make ends meet as it is. Ever heard of the saying "you can't squeeze blood from a rock"? Anyway I hope life is kind to you, even though it means you will continue to pass your baseless, self-righteous judgment on people whose circumstances you have no capacity to understand.

No, I fully understand the "socioeconomics" of people who scrape by, live paycheck to paycheck, etc...it sucks, and you want to blame somebody - me? - for their situation?

Many people make a mess of their lives...they fail to take advantage of the education system...they fail to apply themselves...the get neck deep in credit card debt buying stuff they can't afford...and when they lose their health insurance, or choose to not get any insurance, they go without, crossing their fingers...very high risk choice, not a choice I would ever make...

 

[Depakote]

let's keep the comments in this thread civil.

also,
this has turned into more of a topics in healthcare debate... moving.

 

[postbacker]

I don't know if he ever looked into a state plan or not. I barely met the guy, but like I pointed out in my previous post it takes a year or longer in PA to get onto the state plan because of the large amount of demand and limited funds available.

Also, even if he did take out a high deductible plan how would that have guaranteed him coverage under another insurance plan when he finally did find a potential job? Is there some kind of law for that (I don't know)? No job= no health insurance, not able to get covered by company insurance= no job. It is a catch 22.


He was unemployed for 7 months because the industry we are in is absolutely taking a beating right now. Being unemployed for 7 months in the industry we are in is very common. I know some people who have been unemployed or who have had to take temp jobs in our industry for well over a year.

Maybe he should have moved to an area of the country where there are more and better jobs? Maybe he should have transferred his skills to an industry with more jobs?

I still don't understand why he did not get the job...I can understand that he has a pre-exisiting condition that will prevent him from signing on to the company insurance plan for some period of time, but why did that disqualify him for the job itself? Lots of people take jobs where they cannot immediately participate in the company plan...aomething about this anecdote does not add up...or are you suggesting that your company is discriminating against this poor slob because he has cancer?

 

[surfstarj]

No, I fully understand the "socioeconomics" of people who scrape by, live paycheck to paycheck, etc...it sucks, and you want to blame somebody - me? - for their situation?

Many people make a mess of their lives...they fail to take advantage of the education system...they fail to apply themselves...the get neck deep in credit card debt buying stuff they can't afford...and when they lose their health insurance, or choose to not get any insurance, they go without, crossing their fingers...very high risk choice, not a choice I would ever make...

Nobody is blaming you because they live paycheck to paycheck. But the fact that there ARE people living that way, who cannot pay for health insurance, necessitates that we, as potential medical professionals, pay attention.

And what about those that do apply themselves (whatever that means) and do work hard, do not overspend and still barely get by. It is beyond ignorant to define everyone who is uninsured as stupid or lazy. It simply is not the case. Yes, there are some people who live like you describe and I'm sure you get off at night thinking about how superior you are to those pathetic souls. But, what did any one of the 8 million uninsured children do to "deserve" lack of medical coverage?

 

[BrokenGlass]

I'm glad the government provided me with a public school to attend so I can get an education when my father was working at McDonald's and my mother was a maid. Obviously they could not afford private school for me with their wages at that time.

That's old thinking. Today many private schools, including Stanford and Harvard, are completely free for someone whose parents are low income earners.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

But, what did any one of the 8 million uninsured children do to "deserve" lack of medical coverage?

Well, clearly, as per postbacker's logic, those children simply aren't working hard enough or saving enough money in they "emergency fund". You know, cause all children should be doing that.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

That's old thinking. Today many private schools, including Stanford and Harvard, are completely free for someone whose parents are low income earners.

Source?

 

[postbacker]

Nobody is blaming you because they live paycheck to paycheck. But the fact that there ARE people living that way, who cannot pay for health insurance, necessitates that we, as potential medical professionals, pay attention.

And what about those that do apply themselves (whatever that means) and do work hard, do not overspend and still barely get by. It is beyond ignorant to define everyone who is uninsured as stupid or lazy. It simply is not the case. Yes, there are some people who live like you describe and I'm sure you get off at night thinking about how superior you are to those pathetic souls. But, what did any one of the 8 million uninsured children do to "deserve" lack of medical coverage?

I have never described these people as stupid or lazy...don't ascribe that to anything I have said in this or any thread...

Here is what amazes me...you and others believe the solution is in government insurance...well we already have government insurance - Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP...and all I read here is how f@cked up these programs are - how there are waiting lists - and then you tell me that your idea for "fixing" the insurance system is to end all private and employment based insurance and force everyone in the country to participate in a government plan...absolutely brilliant idea!

 

[surfstarj]

That's old thinking. Today many private schools, including Stanford and Harvard, are completely free for someone whose parents are low income earners.

Right, and how many elementary and middle schools do you know that give scholarships? I think they were talking to pre-college education. You know, that stuff you need to get into college...just a thought.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Source?

google it.

 

[surfstarj]

I have never described these people as stupid or lazy...don't ascribe that to anything I have said in this or any thread...

Here is what amazes me...you and others believe the solution is in government insurance...well we already have government insurance - Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP...and all I read here is how f@cked up these programs are - how there are waiting lists - and then you tell me that your idea for "fixing" the insurance system is to end all private and employment based insurance and force everyone in the country to participate in a government plan...absolutely brilliant idea!

When have I supported socialization of health care in any of my posts? The answer is never, because I do not believe that is the answer. I am mostly disgusted with your attitude, as a medical professional. To dismiss those people without care as just doing something wrong is foolish. Not everyone has access to care they can afford and it's not always because they aren't doing the right things.

 

[surfstarj]

It scares the crap out of me that your posts indicate a total lack of empathy. Maybe you haven't had the chance to get enough perspective on the situation to realize how incredibly stressful and harrowing living without health insurance (not to name MANY other things) when you are extremely low income. Add in a family to support and I don't think setting aside money for yourself remains high on that priority list. Respect the dignity of those people who are uninsured out of sacrifice for their family, the people who are working hard and do not qualify for aid but still cannot afford private insurance. The self-employed. Don't be so narrow minded just because you've attained the great luxury of a comfortable place from which you may talk about the working poor and unemployed.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Source?

http://college.lisnews.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/16/2345243

http://www.centurychina.com/cgi-bin...G=33734393637333&zu=33373439363136&v=2&gV=0&p=

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2006/pr-tuition-031506.html

http://cornellsun.com/node/17305

There are many other articles I have read on yahoo news, etc. regarding this. It's old news to me. I am surprised people are unaware of this.

 

[postbacker]

When have I supported socialization of health care in any of my posts? The answer is never, because I do not believe that is the answer. I am mostly disgusted with your attitude, as a medical professional. To dismiss those people without care as just doing something wrong is foolish. Not everyone has access to care they can afford and it's not always because they aren't doing the right things.

I believe in self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Taking care of my own needs through hard work. If this is a "bad attitude" then so be it...

We have welfare, and housing subsidies, and health insurance programs for the poor and disabled, and I am for all of those things.

What I oppose is junking the current health insurance system for a government provided system. The government can't run the insurance programs they have in place now - why should we expect them to do a better job with everyone else?

 

[surfstarj]

I believe in self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Taking care of my own needs through hard work. If this is a "bad attitude" then so be it...

We have welfare, and housing subsidies, and health insurance programs for the poor and disabled, and I am for all of those things.

What I oppose is junking the current health insurance system for a government provided system. The government can't run the insurance programs they have in place now - why should we expect them to do a better job with everyone else?

Again, that's a foolish misconception that hard work is all it takes.

I will give you the example of my family again, because it is the most concrete one I have.

My father works up to 100 hours a week as a self-employed businessman. I would say that is hard. He makes more than would allow him to collect on any form of low-income benefits. My family has never overspent. Live in very modest housing and had very little in the way of possessions.There were months and months of my life where all I had to eat was pasta with canned tomatoes on top because it costs about $1.00/person for a fairly nutritious meal. . There are 7 people in my family (two sets of twins included!). The cost of private insurance would be MIND BOGGLING (even for someone as "hardworking" as yourself). NEVER ONCE did my parents EXPECT to be helped, but given the choice between my father insuring himself or keeping a roof over our heads, the choice was OBVIOUS. Therefore, he remained uninsured. Now, he could have chosen to work less, make less money and possibly collect on government programs but chooses not to do that.

Unfortunately for my (college-educated) father, he was also the victim of embezzlement and lost over a million dollars that has been unrecoverable in the 1980s. So sadly, for this hard working man, the breaks were maybe not in his favor, as they obviously have been for you. Bad luck and hardship can happen to anyone, and they often do.

"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." -Plato

I hope you have an emotional (and not just financial) support system should something unfortunate happen to you.

 

[novawildcat]

Maybe he should have moved to an area of the country where there are more and better jobs? Maybe he should have transferred his skills to an industry with more jobs?

1.) Seen the housing market lately? You can't just pick up and move as you please, in order to find a job in another part of the country you have to be able to sell your house first and in this market that we have right now, that could take MONTHS.

2.) Do you expect someone with a master's degree in pharmacology and 15 years experience in the biopharmaceutical industry to "just transfer" to another industry easily without taking a significant pay cut?

I still don't understand why he did not get the job...I can understand that he has a pre-exisiting condition that will prevent him from signing on to the company insurance plan for some period of time, but why did that disqualify him for the job itself? Lots of people take jobs where they cannot immediately participate in the company plan...aomething about this anecdote does not add up...or are you suggesting that your company is discriminating against this poor slob because he has cancer?

No we wanted to hire the guy because he was well qualified for the position. We couldn't hire him though because it is company policy for all employees to be covered by our health insurance. If anyone is discriminating it would be the insurance company. The guy couldn't get the job because Blue Cross Blue Shield is refusing to provide him coverage because they found that he has cancer. I don't think my company is doing anything wrong with requiring all employees to have health insurance; would you want to be exposed to one of your coworkers who is running around with something like TB or Hepatitis and is not receiving treatment because they had no insurance? Probably not. It is probably a liability for the company to allow uninsured workers to work under our roof.

 

[postbacker]

1.) Seen the housing market lately? You can't just pick up and move as you please, in order to find a job in another part of the country you have to be able to sell your house first and in this market that we have right now, that could take MONTHS.

2.) Do you expect someone with a master's degree in pharmacology and 15 years experience to "just transfer" to another industry easily without taking a significant pay cut?





No we wanted to hire the guy because he was well qualified for the position. We couldn't hire him though because it is company policy for all employees to be covered by our health insurance. If anyone is discriminating it would be the insurance company. The guy couldn't get the job because Blue Cross Blue Shield is refusing to provide him coverage because they found that he has cancer. I don't think my company is doing anything wrong with requiring all employees to have health insurance; would you want to be exposed to one of your coworkers who is running around with something like TB or Hepatitis and is not receiving treatment because they had no insurance? Probably not. It is probably a liability for the company to allow uninsured workers to work under our roof.

Sounds discriminatory to me to require an employee to not only have health insurance but to participate in the company plan...I have never heard of anything like that.

What kind of cancer is discovered in a pre employment screen? That sounds unusual to me - maybe skin cancer? Those pre employment and insurance physicals are very limited - mostly people get screened out based on something in their history if anything...or they have high BP, or a bad cholesterol profile...most cancers are missed in full blown physicals, too, and are only discovered when someone presents with a symptom...just curious about this guy, if you know...

 

[novawildcat]

Sounds discriminatory to me to require an employee to not only have health insurance but to participate in the company plan...I have never heard of anything like that.

What kind of cancer is discovered in a pre employment screen? That sounds unusual to me - maybe skin cancer? Those pre employment and insurance physicals are very limited - mostly people get screened out based on something in their history if anything...or they have high BP, or a bad cholesterol profile...most cancers are missed in full blown physicals, too, and are only discovered when someone presents with a symptom...just curious about this guy, if you know...

I don't know what kind, all I heard through the grape vine was that "he had cancer"

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Sounds discriminatory to me to require an employee to not only have health insurance but to participate in the company plan...I have never heard of anything like that.

What kind of cancer is discovered in a pre employment screen? That sounds unusual to me - maybe skin cancer? Those pre employment and insurance physicals are very limited - mostly people get screened out based on something in their history if anything...or they have high BP, or a bad cholesterol profile...most cancers are missed in full blown physicals, too, and are only discovered when someone presents with a symptom...just curious about this guy, if you know...

For all you know, the doctor noticed a strange lump or small cyst somewhere and told the patient he should have a precautionary biopsy. That's happened to a few people I know. Only one was cancer, but they were all still found during normal pre-employment physicals.

 

[postbacker]

1.) Seen the housing market lately? You can't just pick up and move as you please, in order to find a job in another part of the country you have to be able to sell your house first and in this market that we have right now, that could take MONTHS.

2.) Do you expect someone with a master's degree in pharmacology and 15 years experience in the biopharmaceutical industry to "just transfer" to another industry easily without taking a significant pay cut?

Most people have experienced a huge run up in home value - he could have rented out his house (we are assuming he had a house) to wait for the market to rebound...or he could have sold at a loss which would probably still represent a huge gain over what he originally paid for it...

And a pay cut beats no pay, right? Again, he made choices regarding his job, choosing to stay put in PA, choices about the length of time he went without a job, and without health insurance...and if he could have availed himself of COBRA, then he really made a bad choice not taking it...if he owned a house, he could have tapped the equity to pay for COBRA...but evidently he chose not to...

From your description, he is older - at least mid 30s, but probably older than that...the risk to a 21 year old to have a lapse in insurance coverage is not too great and is certainly less than the same risk assumed by a 40+ year old person...the ability to get insured goes down as age goes up and more conditions become pre-existing...if he is over 40, perhaps he should have taken more care to keep his insurance current, even if he had to borrow money or tap his home equity to pay for COBRA...tough break for him, but I am not sure what the answer is...

 

[Arjunsi]

Unfortunately, there are lots of immature pre-meds who think that having socialized health care is the devil and they will no longer get their huge salaries after residency.

Translation: If you disagree with me then you are selfish and immature.

Insults and generalizations FTW!

 

[Arjunsi]

I want the federal government running my health care program about as much as I want them to take over my state's emergency response department.

Furthermore, some folks should be careful about getting all righteous toward someone that doesn't agree with your stance that health care should be a right. If this is a a matter of morality, and not just a disagreement on public policy, then you ought to be pushing for that same legislation to provide coverage for every other uninsured human on this planet.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I want the federal government running my health care program about as much as I want them to take over my state's emergency response department.

Furthermore, some folks should be careful about getting all righteous toward someone that doesn't agree with your stance that health care should be a right. If this is a a matter of morality, and not just a disagreement on public policy, then you ought to be pushing for that same legislation to provide coverage for every other uninsured human on this planet.

Well, I DO think that every human on this planet should have access to health care. Nearly all Europeans have access, a large portion of Asia has access, and I think we should help Africa and the Indian subcontinent develop their health systems.

What's your point?

 

[Arjunsi]

What's your point?

I can't tell you yet.

 

[NonTradMed]

Per your bolded statement - does this guy have a current job with medical insurance, or is he unemployed? If he has insurance through another job and qualifies for COBRA coverage, he can eventually get covered by your company with no pre-existing conditions...if he was unemployed with no insurance, he made a very poor choice - he took a huge risk, and it has turned against him...tough for him, but that is the way it goes...

Everyone needs contiuous insurance coverage...the "gaps" in coverage are where people fall through the cracks...and most of the time, no matter how screwed up the system is, the ultimate fault is with the uninsured individual...

The ironic part about the way the current insurance policy works is that medical insurance becomes VERY expensive once you don't have a job anymore.

When I quit my job, I got a letter saying that I could continue my coverage for several hundred a month via COBRA. I had no family, was young and healthy and that was how much it would cost to maintain my coverage (I declined since I was attending school and got coverage through school).

If a person was unemployed, had a family and was cash poor but had asset, it is hard to maintain decent health coverage for everyone, and as others noted, gov't aid isn't exactly fast in coming. And the older you are, the harder it is to find a job with benefits. Plus, once you are tied down with family, moving around isn't easy since you'd have to sell your house.

If a person is unemployed for a long period of time, even if they were engaged in 'survival jobs' (i.e working at Starbucks), typically, they cannot afford to pay for mortgage, support a family and pay for COBRA. Honestly, I really think the worst part of the insurance business is tying good, inexpensive insurance rates to a job. I would be happy with just a insurance program will everyone can opt into and pay on their own without being part of an organization (like car insurance).

I know this post is a bit old in the thread right now, but seeing as how nobody addressed the apparent naivete here, I decided to.

Apparently you've never been in a situation before where you were unable to secure employment for an extended period of time and had to consider purchasing insurance yourself. If you had, you'd realize that private insurance, unsubsidized by an employer, is cost prohibitive even to single, healthy people that are not highly compensated, let alone those who are unemployed and need coverage for a family.

It's fine to say it's an individual's responsibility. But just know that that statement is no different from saying that it is ok for some individuals to have no insurance.

Truer words were never spoken.

We have a huge problem with people in the US not taking good care of themselves - eating themselves into obesity, developing diabetes, heart disease, etc - and when they have a problem, they show up at the emergency room because they don't have a regular doctor...many of these uninsured poor are fully eligible for medicaid, but they don't even accept enough responsibility for themselves to go down and sign up for the program...somehow preventive medicine needs to get emphasized better in the US, and that is a 2 way street meaning that individuals need to take more responsibility for their own health...

I agree. But the situation the OP was addressing isn't that the man was irresponsible. The problem I see is that working poor and those that have transient, unstable employment find difficulty in securing affordable insurance.

Yeah, I'm sure it works great for 85% of the nation.

-A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

I remember reading stats related to this, that more and more bankruptcies are filed by people who had insurance but lost it/lost their job along the way of their illnesses. It's ironic that just when you need money and insurance the most, you tend to lose them.

That's old thinking. Today many private schools, including Stanford and Harvard, are completely free for someone whose parents are low income earners.

The problem isn't attending ivy league colleges, the problem for lower income children is getting them the education that would allow admission into these selective institutions. This isn't an education thread but I wanted to point out to get into top schools, typically require admission into a top high school, plus great extra-curriculars to be competitive for them (not to mention SAT tutoring etc). I knew two people who got into Harvard. One attended the MIT summer research program, the other was a state debate winner. All of these wonderful opportunities cost money.

 

[zenman]

McDonald's made me do it.

I get all my health care in Bangkok and here's why
http://underthemosquitonet.blogspot.com/

...plus the hospital has a McDonald's. But there is an exercise place across the street.

 

[postbacker]

The ironic part about the way the current insurance policy works is that medical insurance becomes VERY expensive once you don't have a job anymore.

When I quit my job, I got a letter saying that I could continue my coverage for several hundred a month via COBRA. I had no family, was young and healthy and that was how much it would cost to maintain my coverage (I declined since I was attending school and got coverage through school).

If a person was unemployed, had a family and was cash poor but had asset, it is hard to maintain decent health coverage for everyone, and as others noted, gov't aid isn't exactly fast in coming. And the older you are, the harder it is to find a job with benefits. Plus, once you are tied down with family, moving around isn't easy since you'd have to sell your house.

If a person is unemployed for a long period of time, even if they were engaged in 'survival jobs' (i.e working at Starbucks), typically, they cannot afford to pay for mortgage, support a family and pay for COBRA. Honestly, I really think the worst part of the insurance business is tying good, inexpensive insurance rates to a job. I would be happy with just a insurance program will everyone can opt into and pay on their own without being part of an organization (like car insurance).



Truer words were never spoken.



I agree. But the situation the OP was addressing isn't that the man was irresponsible. The problem I see is that working poor and those that have transient, unstable employment find difficulty in securing affordable insurance.



I remember reading stats related to this, that more and more bankruptcies are filed by people who had insurance but lost it/lost their job along the way of their illnesses. It's ironic that just when you need money and insurance the most, you tend to lose them.



The problem isn't attending ivy league colleges, the problem for lower income children is getting them the education that would allow admission into these selective institutions. This isn't an education thread but I wanted to point out to get into top schools, typically require admission into a top high school, plus great extra-curriculars to be competitive for them (not to mention SAT tutoring etc). I knew two people who got into Harvard. One attended the MIT summer research program, the other was a state debate winner. All of these wonderful opportunities cost money.

Actually, the case raised by the OP involved not the "working poor with transient unstable employment" but a highly educated white collar professional with 15 years of steady employment who got laid off due to a bad regional economy...I suggest that this person erred badly by not taking advantage of COBRA coverage given his apparent age and high risk of becoming "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions. If he also needed that continuous coverage for a family (not sure if this was the case) then he made an even bigger mistake...

Thus I submit the man in the example was "irresponsible" or at least used poor judgment...if he had access to COBRA, he made a very poor choice to not take it...I bet that he kept paying his house and car insurance after losing his job...the risks associated with not having health insurance are greater because they can haunt you for the rest of your life (or until you find a job where you go through some sort of qualification period, or you make it to Medicare age)...on some level, this guy "rolled the dice" and it came up craps...

I agree with you that one of the biggest problems with employment based health insurance is when it lapses with job loss or job change. Additionally, the exclusion of "pre-existing conditions" from coverage is a big problem for individuals who have to go out and obtain new coverage. I would like to see a system where maintaining unbroken coverage is possible...maybe it is a federal fund that helps people temporarily pay with subsidies for COBRA-like coverage (kind of like limited or short term unemployment benefits)...ultimately there would have to be a time limit on these subsidies, just as there are now time limits on welfare and unemployment pay...

I do not, however, see the logic or wisdom in junking the current employment / private insurance system in favor of a government insurance program, especially given the government failure to run Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP economically, fairly, and efficiently...

 

[mikkey]

The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world? For-profit insurance is more wasteful than non-profit, e.g. socialized insurance?

What the hell are you smoking?

I did not say that for-profit is more wasteful that non-profit, but as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a lot of money in the USA being paided out for health insurance even when no treatment is initiated. I believe this is indeed a waste of resources. Now, I am not saying that the enormous buraucracy that comes with socialized medical care is not wasteful, but I am saying that as societies, both Canada and the USA need to change in the medical field. I don't mean go to extremes, such as privatizing everything in Canada (where everything is public) but simply initiating compromises. My example was the French system, which is universal, but where patients can pay to get immediate surguries, for example. This enables physicians to be paided a decent amount, while ensuring care for all.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I do not, however, see the logic or wisdom in junking the current employment / private insurance system in favor of a government insurance program, especially given the government failure to run Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP economically, fairly, and efficiently...

It's kind of hard to run them well when you have a cowboy in office who feels it's acceptable to fiscally run the programs into the ground in order to catch those nasty "turrists".

"Yeehaw" isn't a national policy.

 

[postbacker]

It's kind of hard to run them well when you have a cowboy in office who feels it's acceptable to fiscally run the programs into the ground in order to catch those nasty "turrists".

"Yeehaw" isn't a national policy.

Your criticism of these poorly run programs is a little misplaced...these programs have never been properly run or funded since their inception many years ago...if you think that having the "correct" Pres in the White House will clean all of the mess up, you are naive...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Your criticism of these poorly run programs is a little misplaced...these programs have never been properly run or funded since their inception many years ago...if you think that having the "correct" Pres in the White House will clean all of the mess up, you are naive...

I was more referring to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11100952/

President Bush sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget plan Monday that would make his first-term tax cuts permanent while reducing government-funded programs[...]The plan also calls for an increase in spending on the war against terrorism and a squeeze on Medicare funds.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-8.html

The Deficit Reduction Act is estimated to slow the pace of spending growth in both Medicare and Medicaid.

Good game.

 

[surfstarj]

Your criticism of these poorly run programs is a little misplaced...these programs have never been properly run or funded since their inception many years ago...if you think that having the "correct" Pres in the White House will clean all of the mess up, you are naive...

You're right. We need many, many doctors, policy makers, lobbyists, etc. to take responsibility for cleaning this mess up instead of saying "Screw it, i have insurance. I am a rock. I am self-sufficient and it's too big for me to fix." This is something that weakens our country by weakening the people of our country. Do I have the best solution? No, but I plus 25,000 other health care professionals, policy makers and the like might get closer. If the responsibility to effect change is not yours and mine and our future colleagues than whose is it?

 

[postbacker]

You're right. We need many, many doctors, policy makers, lobbyists, etc. to take responsibility for cleaning this mess up instead of saying "Screw it, i have insurance. I am a rock. I am self-sufficient and it's too big for me to fix." This is something that weakens our country by weakening the people of our country. Do I have the best solution? No, but I plus 25,000 other health care professionals, policy makers and the like might get closer. If the responsibility to effect change is not yours and mine and our future colleagues than whose is it?

Maybe it is everyone's responsibility? Like the 50 percent of voters who never vote? We need a full national debate on this issue, but it will get politicized and marginalized and no real progress will ever happen.

Even if Hillary Clinton gets elected and has a Democrat majority in Congress, she will get very little of her proposals approved, if anything at all...change is glacial...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Maybe it is everyone's responsibility? Like the 50 percent of voters who never vote? We need a full national debate on this issue, but it will get politicized and marginalized and no real progress will ever happen.

Even if Hillary Clinton gets elected and has a Democrat majority in Congress, she will get very little of her proposals approved, if anything at all...change is glacial...

Well, a good first move would be to eliminate our archaic electoral college system. I fail to see why certain states get more of a say in the election regardless of what percent of their population actually votes. 1 person, 1 vote. Simple enough.

 

[postbacker]

Well, a good first move would be to eliminate our archaic electoral college system. I fail to see why certain states get more of a say in the election regardless of what percent of their population actually votes. 1 person, 1 vote. Simple enough.

That will never happen because it requires a constitutional amendment approved by the very states that benefit from the system...never.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

That will never happen because it requires a constitutional amendment approved by the very states that benefit from the system...never.

Yes...because we've never added amendments that caused states to gain or lose influence in elections...

*coughcoughAmendments14,19,and26coughcough*

 

[postbacker]

Yes...because we've never added amendments that caused states to gain or lose influence in elections...

*coughcoughAmendments14,19,and26coughcough*

What exactly is your point? We will never change the electoral system because constitutional amendments require the approval of 3/4 vote of the 50 state legislatures, and far more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the current system...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

What exactly is your point? We will never change the electoral system because constitutional amendments require the approval of 2/3 vote of the 50 state legislatures, and far more than 1/3 of the states benefit from the current system...

My point is that you think that because YOU don't think it can happen, based on YOUR impression of how senators would vote, you can disregard the fact that such laws have been passed before.

Have you taken into account riders? Or maybe not a total, outright abandonment of the system but rather developing a more even one? Did you ever think that things like this tend to happen in or near election years, as that's when people want to please their constituents?

It just seems like you love shooting your condescending, defeatist mouth off without any thought on the actual matter.

 

[postbacker]

My point is that you think that because YOU don't think it can happen, based on YOUR impression of how senators would vote, you can disregard the fact that such laws have been passed before.

Have you taken into account riders? Or maybe not a total, outright abandonment of the system but rather developing a more even one? Did you ever think that things like this tend to happen in or near election years, as that's when people want to please their constituents?

It just seems like you love shooting your condescending, defeatist mouth off without any thought on the actual matter.

First, a correction...it requires 3/4 approval, an even higher barrier...

Dude, if the electoral college could not get changed after the 2000 election, when exactly do you think there will be sufficient political will to change it? There wasn't even any kind of organized effort that ever got anywhere to change it...

Sounds to me like you live in the "theoretical" world rather than the actual world where we all live...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Dude, if the electoral college could not get changed after the 2000 election, when exactly do you think there will be sufficient political will to change it? There wasn't even any kind of organized effort that ever got anywhere to change it...

Are you effing serious?!?

You don't think the fact that Diebold is now tied up in a dozen lawsuits, the Federal Election Commission is STILL under investigation from 2000 AND 2004, and the fact that electronic ballots have been temporarily banned in many locations as an organized effort?

Damn, read the effing news, dude.

Sounds to me like you live in the "theoretical" world rather than the actual world where we all live...

Says the man who thinks people without insurance are all out buying HDTVs, are just lazy, and should have been saving "emergency funds" from their salary, no matter how meagre.

Well played, sir.

 

[postbacker]

Are you effing serious?!?

You don't think the fact that Diebold is now tied up in a dozen lawsuits, the Federal Election Commission is STILL under investigation from 2000 AND 2004, and the fact that electronic ballots have been temporarily banned in many locations as an organized effort?

Damn, read the effing news, dude.



Says the man who thinks people without insurance are all out buying HDTVs, are just lazy, and should have been saving "emergency funds" from their salary, no matter how meagre.

Well played, sir.

The bolded has ZERO to do with the electoral college. ZERO. We were talking about changing the electoral system, not issues with voting machines...

Seriously, are you daft? You can't make a sensible cogent argument out of anything from what i have seen in this thread...and you consistently resort to ad hominem attacks against me, twisting my positions to fit your world view...

You should get back to class because I can only assume you are not doing too well in your studies...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

The bolded has ZERO to do with the electoral college. ZERO. We were talking about changing the electoral system, not issues with voting machines...

You specifically stated that amendments would not be passed that would cause a state to lose influence due to a shift in voter power. I gave you several examples of just that happening. You then stated that nothing proactive had been done about the 2000 election, I gave you examples of just that happening.

Do you seriously have a problem seeing the cause and effect relationship of the posts here?

Seriously, are you daft? You can't make a sensible cogent argument out of anything from what i have seen in this thread...and you consistently resort to ad hominem attacks against me, twisting my positions to fit your world view...

Ad hominem attacks? Hmm...let's see:

I am dismayed how many of them have "drunk the liberal Kool Aid"

Please show some intellectual honesty in these forum "debates"

Of course he could have, but the argument here is that it was "too expensive" compared to all of the other expenses in his life (mortgage, car note, high def TV, cablevision, country club dues...you know, all the higher priority necessities in life)

you are naive

Sounds to me like you live in the "theoretical" world

Seriously, are you daft? You can't make a sensible cogent argument out of anything from what i have seen in this thread

You should get back to class because I can only assume you are not doing too well in your studies

Well played again, sir.

 

[postbacker]

You specifically stated that amendments would not be passed that would cause a state to lose influence due to a shift in voter power. I gave you several examples of just that happening. You then stated that nothing proactive had been done about the 2000 election, I gave you examples of just that happening.

The 2 amendments you cited have NOTHING to do with the preservation of states rights issues of the electoral college...the 14th amendment was a reconstruction era amendment granting suffrage to blacks, among other things, and while you might have a point that this represented a "loss" in power to the former slave states, that "train" had long ago left the station...the state legislatures of those states had been "taken over" by anti-slavery officials who ratified the amendment as the final nail in the coffin to slavery.

As for the 19th amendment, I see zero relationship to the electoral college issue - exactly how would any individual state "suffer" from extending the right to vote to women?

Where is the effort to change the electoral college? That was the original question...surely after 2000, there must be something you can point to indicating there is an organized effort to change this amendment? Of course, there is none...

 

[mfpullen]

The 2 amendments you cited have NOTHING to do with the preservation of states rights issues of the electoral college...

I thought he laid out his argument and reasoning pretty well for you:

You specifically stated that amendments would not be passed that would cause a state to lose influence due to a shift in voter power. I gave you several examples of just that happening. You then stated that nothing proactive had been done about the 2000 election, I gave you examples of just that happening.

I'm really not sure what you are not getting...

 

[postbacker]

I thought he laid out his argument and reasoning pretty well for you:



I'm really not sure what you are not getting...

There is no parallel between the circumstances of the 14th and 19th amendments and the issues underlying the electoral college.

Again, where is the reality? There was no organized effort that ever got anywhere to change the electoral college after the 2000 election. If it didn't happen then, when will it happen?

This is not a question of theory - of course in theory it could get changed, as could any other issue or amendment. My point is that it did not happen at the one moment in recent history that it had all the possible momentum an issue like that could ever have (2000) and NOTHING HAPPENED.

The practical reality of it, too, is that the Electoral College system "protects" far more states than it "hurts" and it is almost impossible to envision the coalition of a sufficient number of state legislatures that would be necessary to change this amendment.

 

[Miami_med]

It scares the crap out of me that your posts indicate a total lack of empathy. Maybe you haven't had the chance to get enough perspective on the situation to realize how incredibly stressful and harrowing living without health insurance (not to name MANY other things) when you are extremely low income. Add in a family to support and I don't think setting aside money for yourself remains high on that priority list. Respect the dignity of those people who are uninsured out of sacrifice for their family, the people who are working hard and do not qualify for aid but still cannot afford private insurance. The self-employed. Don't be so narrow minded just because you've attained the great luxury of a comfortable place from which you may talk about the working poor and unemployed.

It's often EASIER to insure a family than you might think. There's a lot of BS, but there is also a lot of laziness. A lot of not being able to AFFORD health insurance is really just not being willing to do what it takes to afford it. I assume that this was moved from the pre-med board, due to the large pre-med response. You will soon find that you will have to buy health insurance on a wage that comes out to approximately $8/hr, and you will do it. I do it, family and all. My annual income is negative, my living money (most of which is debt) affords me much LESS than the national average, and I have a family. Also, there are a million jobs right here in Miami that pay more than $8/hr, with no experience whatsoever. If you choose not to take one, that's your own fault. Unemployment has been at record lows for an unprecedented period of time.

P.S. As a medical student who is NOT from extreme wealth, I can tell you that I have managed to become both working poor and unemployed at the same time.