Public Option close to being dropped

[guyski79]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'd like to just throw this in.. I emailed my trumpet professor (yes music majors have those) because he is from Canada to ask him what he thought of it personally... here is what he said:

"No that's certainly fine to ask... if you really want to know my opinion, I love the health care system in Canada. I've also asked my parents and friends what they think and, to be honest, I can't find anyone that would want to get rid of it. The media in America likes to exaggerate and make it look like a worse option than it is - don't believe the hype.

The biggest problem they say is that you have to wait 6 months or a year for certain operations. That actually may be true in some cases, but the argument doesn't hold any water because that wait is what happens with the free option. What doesn't seem to get mentioned is that anyone (at any point!) can opt to actually pay and get American-style coverage if they wanted to. But at the very least, everyone has the free coverage. And, of course, if there's truly a need to be attended to right away (emergency or otherwise) there is definitely no waiting!

They also tend to favor (favour?) preventive coverage - things like reduced (or "free") gym memberships. I say free in quotes because of course taxes are higher slightly in Canada but that is nothing that fazes anyone there when they know they're getting something good out of it. People there tend to think less of themselves and more of the greater good. Without going on a rant, some of the worst health care I've seen in my lifetime has been dealing with HMO doctors in the U.S. I had never seen anything so disorganized or incompetent such as what I've seen here in the U.S. when I was living in Canada.

One other side note - one of the main reasons for any waiting in Canada with the free option is simply because of a shortage of doctors in any given area. For example, they might have a 6-month waiting list for a hip replacement for someone not because they want them to wait because they're not paying. It's not callous and malicious, it's that there's not enough hip replacement doctors available... something that they are trying to work on from what I hear.

And, one last thing (before this becomes a term paper!) - the liberal nature of Canadians means that a lot of experimental drugs and new breakthroughs happen there vs. here. That is something that I believe is a plus for Canada... if I had been diagnosed with something bad here and the only cure was in Canada, I know where I would be headed!

Take all media hype with a giant salt lick 🙂 Hope that helps!"

👍

I have very similar positive reviews of the NHS from some friends that live in the UK.

 

[7starmantis]

👍

I have very similar positive reviews of the NHS from some friends that live in the UK.

While anecdotal evidence is certainly very compelling its not wise to base such a huge change to 1/4 our economy on it. Canada's system works, as does every system, how well is another story as is how well other countries systems would work in the US. The NHS is not without its own issues as well.

Canada's system is failing by confession of its own CMA President.

“We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” she said.

Here is an interesting interview with her from Canadian press. She is pretty deliberate in pushing for private care.

Also, it appears the earlier stated professor is wrong, privatized care is still illegal in Canada. Another article (NY Times) about a new trend of private hospitals emerging in Canada. A few notable quotes:

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years in discomfort before receiving treatment.

The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.

"We've taken the position that the law is illegal," Dr. Day, 59, says. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

I'm not saying the Canadian system is fail. I'm simply saying it has its problems as well and we can't just start proposing we carbon copy other countries' systems as they aren't all compatible with our country.

I guess I'm saying that with 84% of American's happy with their coverage, incremental may just be the best way we could do things here. There have been countless proposed options that have yet to be given the light of day in either house. At least Canada is engaging its population for ideas.

The Health Council of Canada has launched a forum designed to engage Canadians in a national dialogue about value for money, to open a conversation about how to get ‘the biggest bang for the buck’ in health care.

 

[fant 2]

In actual care we are much higher than #37. Since the government doesn't run the healthcare system, our stats are our actuals stats.
I believe it was Sweden(some northern euro country) who had amazingly low child motality rate. Turns out their gov. run system doesn't consider someone a citizen or an infant (something like that) until they turn 1 years old.
Since in gov. run systems, the protocols are set by buearocrats, not doctors, there is more concern with saving money and making the stats look good to get reelected.

Many socialized systems use protocols such as, treating heart attack PTs much the same way we do, but then sending them home to "rest" and to come back if things don't get better, instead of keeping them overnight. The reasoning being that ppl are more comfortable at home. If those ppl don't come back, then they assume that they got better. The reality is many die at home, but the statistics will show that a higher percent of MI PTs treated at the hospital survive.

Of course no government is going to admit this. I do not have published references. Only heard these and other problems from American doctors who had visited hospitals in socialized healthcare countries. You can take it with a grain of salt, but it does follow the logical trend we have seen throughout history that politicians don't care about anything other than staying in power.

 

[GH253]

abolish all government involvement in healthcare

 

[rockaction]

abolish all government involvement in healthcare

oh the naivety

 

[GH253]

oh the naivety

Oh gosh, case closed then. Well done.

 

[GH253]

In actual care we are much higher than #37. Since the government doesn't run the healthcare system, our stats are our actuals stats.
I believe it was Sweden(some northern euro country) who had amazingly low child motality rate. Turns out their gov. run system doesn't consider someone a citizen or an infant (something like that) until they turn 1 years old.
Since in gov. run systems, the protocols are set by buearocrats, not doctors, there is more concern with saving money and making the stats look good to get reelected.

Many socialized systems use protocols such as, treating heart attack PTs much the same way we do, but then sending them home to "rest" and to come back if things don't get better, instead of keeping them overnight. The reasoning being that ppl are more comfortable at home. If those ppl don't come back, then they assume that they got better. The reality is many die at home, but the statistics will show that a higher percent of MI PTs treated at the hospital survive.

Of course no government is going to admit this. I do not have published references. Only heard these and other problems from American doctors who had visited hospitals in socialized healthcare countries. You can take it with a grain of salt, but it does follow the logical trend we have seen throughout history that politicians don't care about anything other than staying in power.

When proponents of universal healthcare insist that other countries have better outcomes than the US....... nobody ever thinks to ask the question of just how that knoweldge was established. They just take for granted that any compilation of statistics supporting their position is valid. The argument based on "rankings" is even worse. Ranked by who??? by what criteria?? This isn't a healthcare crisis, it's an intellectual crisis. People don't know how to THINK.

 

[guyski79]

abolish all government involvement in healthcare

I agree!

Keep your damn government hands off my medicare!

*sarcasm off*

 

[guyski79]

When proponents of universal healthcare insist that other countries have better outcomes than the US....... nobody ever thinks to ask the question of just how that knoweldge was established. They just take for granted that any compilation of statistics supporting their position is valid. The argument based on "rankings" is even worse. Ranked by who??? by what criteria?? This isn't a healthcare crisis, it's an intellectual crisis. People don't know how to THINK.

Must be lonely up there on that pedestal.

Seriously though, no healthcare crisis?

Everything's just peachy keen?

 

[guyski79]

While anecdotal evidence is certainly very compelling its not wise to base such a huge change to 1/4 our economy on it. Canada's system works, as does every system, how well is another story as is how well other countries systems would work in the US. The NHS is not without its own issues as well.

Oh I agree. But by the same token, the lessons we could learn from other countries' healthcare systems are not to be disregarded by anecdotal evidence alone either.

 

[GH253]

I agree!

Keep your damn government hands off my medicare!

*sarcasm off*

The statement that all government intervention in healthcare should be abolished necessarily includes Medicare. There is no contradiction there.

 

[guyski79]

The statement that all government intervention in healthcare should be abolished necessarily includes Medicare. There is no contradiction there.

Well you're logically consistent then.

What's the reasoning (besides the obvious that Medicare will be financially insolvent pretty soon)?

 

[GH253]

Well you're logically consistent then.

What's the reasoning (besides the obvious that Medicare will be financially insolvent pretty soon)?

It's immoral because it constitutes a forceful redistribution of wealth and, furthermore, is a scam designed to cheat doctors out of reimbursement. It's impractical because it has to be managed by a gang of self-serving politicians who are primarily concerned with re-election. It's destructive because it drives up demand artificially. Medicare is an all-around catastrophe and its existence is at the core of the healthcare/intellectual crisis.

 

[guyski79]

It's immoral because it constitutes a forceful redistribution of wealth and, furthermore, is a scam designed to cheat doctors out of reimbursement. It's impractical because it has to be managed by a gang of self-serving politicians who are primarily concerned with re-election. It's destructive because it drives up demand artificially. Medicare is an all-around catastrophe and its existence is at the core of the healthcare/intellectual crisis.

Fair enough, I see your point. Regardless of how any of us feel about Medicare, it isn't going anywhere.

But hypothetically, how then do you solve the problem of getting seniors affordable health insurance?

That was the problem that brought Medicare into existence in the first place.

 

[fant 2]

This isn't a healthcare crisis, it's an intellectual crisis. People don't know how to THINK.

Our country is definately in an intellectual crisis. Better education could solve more health problems than healthcare reform. Obesity, diabetes, heart diseases, etc are all problems that ppl can at least partially prevent themselves through healthier lifestyles. The dems will never go for this because they depend on people who are not self sufficient and need the government. It is the same with the Healthcare reform. They need to quick rush it through before ppl have a chance to see how bad it is. It is just a way to seize control over more ppl lives.
The public option does not have to remain profitable(taxes), so they can play by any rules they want. Forcing Insurance companies to make bad bussiness decisions will put them out of bussiness. This is just a foot in the door method of complete gov. takeover. That is why they don't care if they drop the public option temporarily. This bill will ruin private insurance and then they can make their move later.

 

[guyski79]

Our country is definately in an intellectual crisis. Better education could solve more health problems than healthcare reform. Obesity, diabetes, heart diseases, etc are all problems that ppl can at least partially prevent themselves through healthier lifestyles. The dems will never go for this because they depend on people who are not self sufficient and need the government. It is the same with the Healthcare reform. They need to quick rush it through before ppl have a chance to see how bad it is. It is just a way to seize control over more ppl lives.
The public option does not have to remain profitable(taxes), so they can play by any rules they want. Forcing Insurance companies to make bad bussiness decisions will put them out of bussiness. This is just a foot in the door method of complete gov. takeover. That is why they don't care if they drop the public option temporarily. This bill will ruin private insurance and then they can make their move later.

Totally agree, but this isn't just a problem of education. It's not that simple. It's also a problem of cost and access to a healthy lifestyle.

Lots of people in rural areas don't have the same access to good produce. Lots of poorer people can't afford it.

Cheap corn goods are highly subsidized, while fruits and vegetables much less. It's no wonder that processed food is EVERYWHERE.

 

[FIREitUP]

if you go to destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn (where downstate is) there is basically no access to fresh fruits and vegetables, so people become acclimated to a lifestyle that is based on eating fast food and ready made meals. America has become the land of inequity and opportunity for the few at the expense of the majority.

 

[guyski79]

if you go to destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn (where downstate is) there is basically no access to fresh fruits and vegetables, so people become acclimated to a lifestyle that is based on eating fast food and ready made meals. America has become the land of inequity and opportunity for the few at the expense of the majority.

Exactly my point. People can know exactly what they're doing and how unhealthy their lifestyle is.

But if they don't have the means or access to live healthier, what difference does knowledge make?

 

[GH253]

if you go to destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn (where downstate is) there is basically no access to fresh fruits and vegetables, so people become acclimated to a lifestyle that is based on eating fast food and ready made meals. America has become the land of inequity and opportunity for the few at the expense of the majority.

The majority of people do not live in destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn. Even if you can't afford to buy produce, you can still avoid obesity by controling the amount of food you consume. This has absolutely nothing to do with social inequity and everything to do with rampant personal irresponsibility among people of all classes.

 

[guyski79]

The majority of people do not live in destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn. Even if you can't afford to buy produce, you can still avoid obesity by controling the amount of food you consume.

It's just so simplistic. People aren't going to eat 1/2 a cheeseburger to limit their calories.

And even in this fantasy world where people would eat smaller portions, they'd still be eating foods loaded with sodium and fat, so they'd still have lots of lifestyle-related health problems.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

It's just so simplistic. People aren't going to eat 1/2 a cheeseburger to limit their calories.

And even in this fantasy world where people would eat smaller portions, they'd still be eating foods loaded with sodium and fat, so they'd still have lots of lifestyle-related health problems.

But they wouldn't be overweight. Which is a big part of the problem.

And it's not that hard to count calories... if you have the proper knowledge. It's not like you have to eat half a cheeseburger, you make it sound ridiculous, when it's the complete opposite of that.

 

[guyski79]

The majority of people do not live in destitute areas such as flatbush in brooklyn. Even if you can't afford to buy produce, you can still avoid obesity by controling the amount of food you consume. This has absolutely nothing to do with social inequity and everything to do with rampant personal irresponsibility among people of all classes.

I think you're wrong, and I think this comment really shows a lack of perspective.

I grew up in a very rural area, no access to healthy food. It was mostly processed and fried.

I didn't gorge myself at meals, I ate reasonable portions. But miraculously, I lost 30 pounds when I moved to the coast, just from the change in diet.

Processed foods that are loaded in fat and salt aren't good for you, regardless of portion size.

 

[GH253]

It's just so simplistic. People aren't going to eat 1/2 a cheeseburger to limit their calories.

And even in this fantasy world where people would eat smaller portions, they'd still be eating foods loaded with sodium and fat, so they'd still have lots of lifestyle-related health problems.

You are presenting an unrealistic picture of reality. Nowhere on earth are your food choices limited to McDonald's vs. Burger King. If a person is so irresponsible that he eats cheeseburgers at all of his meals, then his health problems are his own fault and nobody else should feel compelled to worry about him, let alone design healthcare policy around his needs.

 

[guyski79]

But they wouldn't be overweight. Which is a big part of the problem.

Maybe they wouldn't be as overweight, maybe not.

I'd be interested to see someone go on a 1/2 cheeseburger diet.

I assume it's been tried before, and since I haven't heard of any fantastic success stories, I'll assume it wouldn't do much in the way of weight loss.

 

[guyski79]

You are presenting an unrealistic picture of reality. Nowhere on earth are your food choices limited to McDonald's vs. Burger King. If a person is so irresponsible that he eats cheeseburgers at all of his meals, then his health problems are his own fault and nobody else should feel compelled to worry about him, let alone design healthcare policy around his needs.

Never did I say that food choices are limited to McDonald's vs. Burger King. I just used it as an example.

But other fast food chains and processed foods you can buy in grocery stores (frozen pizzas, boxed meals, etc.) are just as bad.

Even lots of dishes you get at sit-down chains (Chili's, Applebee's, etc.) are really terrible.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

Maybe they wouldn't be as overweight, maybe not.

I'd be interested to see someone go on a 1/2 cheeseburger diet.

I assume it's been tried before, and since I haven't heard of any fantastic success stories, I'll assume it wouldn't do much in the way of weight loss.

No, they wouldn't be overweight if they ate less calories than they burned.

Why do you say they have to go on a 1/2 cheeseburger diet? That makes it sound ridiculous, when it isn't ridiculous at all.


Filmed over the summer at 10 restaurants in Coles County, the documentary follows two dietetics graduate students – 254-pound Aaron Grobengieser and 108-pound Ellen Shike – who ate portions suitable for their body types, with all of the food coming from fast-food restaurants and gas stations.

Painter told the students to maintain their usual body weight, but both of them ended up losing weight and even lowering their cholesterol.

That's a stark contrast from the experience of the subject in "Super Size Me," as he gained more than 20 pounds and wrecked his health after eating a steady diet of fast food for a month.

"It wasn't the food that he ate that caused the problems, it was the portions," Painter said. "We really showed that you can eat fast food and not gain weight."

http://www.eiu.edu/~pubaff/headline/2005/1017200590.php



San Antonio, Texas resident Deshan Woods went on a 90-day diet in which he lost nearly 14 pounds. He documented the entire experiment on his website LiquidCalories.com. His overall health improved while sticking to a diet mainly in burgers and fries. He stayed away from sugary drinks and stuck to non-caloric beverages instead. His average caloric intake was 2,500 kcal a day, which included 130 grams of fat. His cholesterol went down about 44 points.

 

[guyski79]

No, they wouldn't be overweight if they ate less calories than they burned.

Why do you say they have to go on a 1/2 cheeseburger diet? That makes it sound ridiculous, when it isn't ridiculous at all.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound ridiculous. I just used that as an example.

What I meant was that it's unrealistic for people to eat portions that won't make them feel full and satisfied.

 

[guyski79]

No, they wouldn't be overweight if they ate less calories than they burned.

Why do you say they have to go on a 1/2 cheeseburger diet? That makes it sound ridiculous, when it isn't ridiculous at all.


Filmed over the summer at 10 restaurants in Coles County, the documentary follows two dietetics graduate students – 254-pound Aaron Grobengieser and 108-pound Ellen Shike – who ate portions suitable for their body types, with all of the food coming from fast-food restaurants and gas stations.

Painter told the students to maintain their usual body weight, but both of them ended up losing weight and even lowering their cholesterol.

That’s a stark contrast from the experience of the subject in “Super Size Me,” as he gained more than 20 pounds and wrecked his health after eating a steady diet of fast food for a month.

“It wasn’t the food that he ate that caused the problems, it was the portions,” Painter said. “We really showed that you can eat fast food and not gain weight.”

http://www.eiu.edu/~pubaff/headline/2005/1017200590.php



San Antonio, Texas resident Deshan Woods went on a 90-day diet in which he lost nearly 14 pounds. He documented the entire experiment on his website LiquidCalories.com. His overall health improved while sticking to a diet mainly in burgers and fries. He stayed away from sugary drinks and stuck to non-caloric beverages instead. His average caloric intake was 2,500 kcal a day, which included 130 grams of fat. His cholesterol went down about 44 points.

Wow, that's fascinating.

I was wrong.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

I think it's all about portions and nutritional education... and exercise. Nobody would recommend eating these kinds of foods all the time, but there is still a lot that the consumer can do in their choices to not make them gain 25 pounds a year 👍

I think those kinds of stories are really cool, so I'm glad you liked it.

 

[ncguy2005]

I spent a week in Ireland, and there is something that most of the restaurants do there that, at least I believe, would play a significant part in this issue.

In the US when your glass is empty, the waitress will keep filling it up. You could easily sit down and consume 300-500 calories of coke without even realizing it.

In Ireland (and I would assume much of Europe), once you finish that glass of coke, you are either done drinking coke, or you pay 3€ for another one. Obviously this makes people limit their consumption.

Also, the EU forces the makers of diet sodas to be more real about their nutrition facts. Coke zero here said "0 Calories". In Ireland it read "<1.5 Calories".

Also, people in Europe seem to walk to their destinations more than here. While this is common practice in large northern cities in the US, down here in Charlotte, walking is pretty much unheard of.

Finally, in Ireland, things were served in smaller portions. We even had to pay for individual packs of ketchup in some places!

I think that preventative healthcare can be pushed much more by the government than by a yearly visit to the doctor's office. I don't mean that the government should say what we can and can't eat, but places that serve food should be held more accountable for what they serve. I bet if half the people knew that the "Chicken Crispers" sold at Chili's had over 2000 calories in it, they'd definitely think twice before they ordered it.... serving food like that should be a crime anyway.

 

[rosebud1]

On the note of money preventing people from eating well - not necessarily true. Fresh fruits and vegetables can be expensive and hard to find in certain areas, absolutely. But canned vegetables, for example, are extremely cheap and can be found anywhere. Things like eggs and brown rice are also very reasonably priced. Money / location is no excuse not to eat healthy. A can of corn costs less than as an order of McDonalds fries (I bought a can yesterday for 70 cents). And a person could easily give up their daily McBreakfast in favor of a couple eggs at no financial loss.

 

[tuffguy13]

On the note of money preventing people from eating well - not necessarily true. Fresh fruits and vegetables can be expensive and hard to find in certain areas, absolutely. But canned vegetables, for example, are extremely cheap and can be found anywhere. Things like eggs and brown rice are also very reasonably priced. Money / location is no excuse not to eat healthy. A can of corn costs less than as an order of McDonalds fries (I bought a can yesterday for 70 cents). And a person could easily give up their daily McBreakfast in favor of a couple eggs at no financial loss.

I agree with this statement. I understand that in certain areas, real food may be hard to come by, but like rosebud said, there are always some alternatives that are not that expensive. Canned food may not be the most healthy thing on the planet, but things like canned fruit and vegetables can be better than the deep fried polyunsaturated carbohydrate mess known as french fries. I mean come on, they sell VALUE FROZEN BROCCOLI at Kroger's for a few bucks. If you care about your health, you'll pick that up instead of some garbage potato chips. Eat eggs. Eat chickens; most grocery stores I've been to sell rotisserie chickens for FIVE DOLLARS...that will last you longer than a meal from a fast food place and its cheaper.

I used to be on a diet that consisted HEAVILY of fast food. I would eat fast food almost every day and I was not in good shape at all. I spent a ridiculous amount of money as well. I started eating healthier foods; more real meats, fruits, vegetables, eggs, etc. and since then I dropped over 50 lbs. and kept it off long term. I'm not one of those guys who goes to some upscale organic grocery store and buys only fresh produce...I buy the cheapest stuff at the regular grocery store, fresh if possible, but canned or frozen as well (whatever I can afford). Also, I've noticed that since I pretty much removed fast food from my diet and started eating real foods, the amount of money I've spent is a lot less than it used to be because I'm not spending 7-10 dollars per meal at Taco Bell, McDonalds, BK, etc. My old roommates still live off of the "fast food" diet, they gain the typical weight associated with that lifestyle, and spend way more money than I do out of convenience. If money is tight, pack a healthy lunch instead of spending 7 bucks for a grilled cheese at the food court.

This is not meant to be a blanket statement, but there are tons of people out there who are lazy and take no initiative to eat healthy and try to be healthy overall. These people have lazy lives of smoking, drinking, eating crap, and not worrying about tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, they are obese, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. then they become scared. Some may be in the hospital because they didn't care enough about their health; now they are frightened and want someone to bail them out of their bad but self-made situation. Not trying to be hearthless, but I find it very hard to have sympathy as these types of health problems don't pop up overnight. Not trying to be a d-bag...I'm also not trying to blame every health problem under the sun to diet. Even people who eat right and exercise can have these problems...but that's why we have health care don't we?

Another point that should be brought up is this: If people still want to eat like crap and clog their arteries, great...go for it. I don't care what anyone else does because what they eat is their business, since this is America and people are live as they please. What I don't approve of is when they start to whine to politicians who then as a result butt into our lives and place a figurative ball and chain through heavy taxation and regulation around the only producing sector of the economy.

I'm not trying to sound like some zealot who is preaching about how people should live, but you get out of life what you put into it. If you want to be healthy, don't whine about it as you finish your mcflurry followed by an after-meal cig.

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

so nothing changes. except now on top of being in debt im gonna be forced to buy private health insurance. the joys of being a student.

 

[tuffguy13]

so nothing changes. except now on top of being in debt im gonna be forced to buy private health insurance. the joys of being a student.

do you have access to

• high deductible low cost catastrophic plan?
• student health service at your college/university?
• college/university health insurance plan?

most schools I know of have a "free" health clinic staffed with doctors to see you for basic health needs. Some schools automatically place you into an insurance program. Other schools let you opt into the programs at a lower cost since the risk pool is large. If you really want to be covered, I would look into these.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

do you have access to

• high deductible low cost catastrophic plan?
• student health service at your college/university?
• college/university health insurance plan?

most schools I know of have a "free" health clinic staffed with doctors to see you for basic health needs. Some schools automatically place you into an insurance program. Other schools let you opt into the programs at a lower cost since the risk pool is large. If you really want to be covered, I would look into these.

What sucks is that you never really know how good your insurance is until you test it... and then it's too late...when you find out what gets covered and what doesn't. That's something that needs to be fixed.

 

[tuffguy13]

What sucks is that you never really know how good your insurance is until you test it... and then it's too late...when you find out what gets covered and what doesn't. That's something that needs to be fixed.

That's a valid point, but I don't really think a government run option would be much better as it really exchanges one monopoly/oligopoly for another. Instead of the insurance company potentially screwing you over, you would have the government potentially screwing you over. Increased competition and selection only helps us as consumers; I know you've probably heard this over and over again but if you allow people to buy/companies to sell insurance across state lines, you would be able to choose from hundreds of companies instead of a handful. True competition would take place. Since insurance companies would have more potential clients as a result of this, it would lead to more customers. More customers leads to greater access to information (especially online) as to how well these companies perform. It would probably hard to find ratings or feedback on an insurance company in Iowa that is only limited to Iowa residents for instance, but if they were allowed to sell to customers nationwide, you have vastly multiplied the pool of customers. If you take any business classes, you will learn that companies that anger their customers have in essence created a "terrorist", who will not only stop purchasing from that company but will spread the bad news of bad experiences to many others they know. I mean think about it, how many of you have ever had a bad experience at a store, then gone home angry about it? Have you shared this information of poor quality of service with others, in the attempt to convince them not to patronize the establishment?

It's up to us as comsumers not to get ripped off; I assume may of you hunt for the cheapest prices of groceries for example at Wal Mart vs other grocery stores. Why shouldn't we hunt for the best insurance prices as a result of nationwide competition? We would actually save money because we wouldn't have to be coerced into some unwanted and bloated tax mess.

 

[tuffguy13]

That's a valid point, but I don't really think a government run option would be much better as it really exchanges one monopoly/oligopoly for another. Instead of the insurance company potentially screwing you over, you would have the government potentially screwing you over. Increased competition and selection only helps us as consumers; I know you've probably heard this over and over again but if you allow people to buy/companies to sell insurance across state lines, you would be able to choose from hundreds of companies instead of a handful. True competition would take place. Since insurance companies would have more potential clients as a result of this, it would lead to more customers. More customers leads to greater access to information (especially online) as to how well these companies perform. It would probably hard to find ratings or feedback on an insurance company in Iowa that is only limited to Iowa residents for instance, but if they were allowed to sell to customers nationwide, you have vastly multiplied the pool of customers. If you take any business classes, you will learn that companies that anger their customers have in essence created a "terrorist", who will not only stop purchasing from that company but will spread the bad news of bad experiences to many others they know. I mean think about it, how many of you have ever had a bad experience at a store, then gone home angry about it? Have you shared this information of poor quality of service with others, in the attempt to convince them not to patronize the establishment?

It's up to us as comsumers not to get ripped off; I assume may of you hunt for the cheapest prices of groceries for example at Wal Mart vs other grocery stores. Why shouldn't we hunt for the best insurance prices as a result of nationwide competition? We would actually save money because we wouldn't have to be coerced into some unwanted and bloated tax mess.

I wanted to add that you have to look at insurance companies as a business from two perspectives. Many people crucify insurance because they "make money off of sick people blah blah blah". The only reason they can take advantage of customers is because customers have so few selections to choose from. They don't care if you take your services elsewhere because their very few competitors are likely not that much better.

In general, yes a business is supposed to make money. At the same time, the only way a business can make money is if it supplies a better quality product, in this case insurance, to their customers. If a company sucks and doesn't pay out beans for claims, people will surely find out eventually and that company will go out of business in an ideal market situation. In our current situation, Insurance companies don't have to try very hard because Insurance company A from Colorado doesn't have to compete with Insurance Company B from Massachusetts.

Everyone knows monopolies suck...why do we allow a similar situation with insurance within states? Even better question, why do we WANT a monopoly (the government) to take over??

Also, the fact that insurance is tied to employers makes it hard for people to pick and choose what they really want since it's basically stuck with whichever company they work for. Taking the handcuff attaching the employer and insurance company together would allow for portable insurance that would follow people from job to job.

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

do you have access to

• high deductible low cost catastrophic plan?
• student health service at your college/university?
• college/university health insurance plan?

most schools I know of have a "free" health clinic staffed with doctors to see you for basic health needs. Some schools automatically place you into an insurance program. Other schools let you opt into the programs at a lower cost since the risk pool is large. If you really want to be covered, I would look into these.

no to bullet one. school student health insurance is $600/ semester!!! nothing here is free. im a returning student who already has a bachelors so i get peanuts for financial aid...system is really made to discourage people to start over in new field. i had the swine flu recently and beat it by mega-dosing on vitamin c. so im stocking up on vitamin c as i doubt i will have health insurance any time soon. and if anything very serious happens ill crash into en ER and ignore any hospital bills that Im charged.

its a sad thing to live in a country where i have to chose between having health-care and having an education.

 

[tuffguy13]

no to bullet one. school student health insurance is $600/ semester!!! nothing here is free. im a returning student who already has a bachelors so i get peanuts for financial aid...system is really made to discourage people to start over in new field. i had the swine flu recently and beat it by mega-dosing on vitamin c. so im stocking up on vitamin c as i doubt i will have health insurance any time soon. and if anything very serious happens ill crash into en ER and ignore any hospital bills that Im charged.

its a sad thing to live in a country where i have to chose between having health-care and having an education.

I am sorry to hear about your struggles and I wish you the best in your future endeavors. Out of curiousity, are you attending a state school or private school?

To add to your comment about choosing between health care and education, if you look where the money going into those systems is going, you can find that a lot of the cost is rooted in government regulation of both industries.

In the health care industry, there is a huge cost because of regulation for paperwork, there is high overhead for administration to take care of these tasks, and prices for patients with insurance is driven up because the government programs underpay. Hospitals are businesses too you know, just because they have non-profit status in some cases does not mean that they can keep the lights on and keep employees running the place without money.

The cost of education is driven up by government as well. The government has shoved itself between you and the school to "help" you pay for school loans. The government signs off on the loans for such a huge amount of students, that this large number of students basically dictates the price of education. The government signs off on your loan and pays the school, the school takes your money, then YOU are left with the bill. Let's say the government completely stopped all financial aid programs and a bunch of people didn't have loans to pay for school. Schools would be empty, as a result, right? The schools just go on with life without having students in the class rooms? HELL NO. They would lower the price of tuition so they could at least get something. The schools have no obligation to say no, we want less money from you...they'll take whatever they can get. The cost of education should be decreasing as more people go into school...economies of scale should come into play allowing for a larger quantity of students being taught at a cheaper price. Technological advances in every aspect of education should also decrease costs of education, yet costs of education increase? It is because the financial aid is inflating these education prices.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

That's a valid point, but I don't really think a government run option would be much better as it really exchanges one monopoly/oligopoly for another. Instead of the insurance company potentially screwing you over, you would have the government potentially screwing you over. Increased competition and selection only helps us as consumers; I know you've probably heard this over and over again but if you allow people to buy/companies to sell insurance across state lines, you would be able to choose from hundreds of companies instead of a handful. True competition would take place. Since insurance companies would have more potential clients as a result of this, it would lead to more customers. More customers leads to greater access to information (especially online) as to how well these companies perform. It would probably hard to find ratings or feedback on an insurance company in Iowa that is only limited to Iowa residents for instance, but if they were allowed to sell to customers nationwide, you have vastly multiplied the pool of customers. If you take any business classes, you will learn that companies that anger their customers have in essence created a "terrorist", who will not only stop purchasing from that company but will spread the bad news of bad experiences to many others they know. I mean think about it, how many of you have ever had a bad experience at a store, then gone home angry about it? Have you shared this information of poor quality of service with others, in the attempt to convince them not to patronize the establishment?

It's up to us as comsumers not to get ripped off; I assume may of you hunt for the cheapest prices of groceries for example at Wal Mart vs other grocery stores. Why shouldn't we hunt for the best insurance prices as a result of nationwide competition? We would actually save money because we wouldn't have to be coerced into some unwanted and bloated tax mess.

I think that's why these reforms should try to address insuring people with pre-existing conditions, and not covering certain kinds of treatment or whatever... laying better guidelines and rules for whoever is providing the insurance.

 

[riss1084]

I think it's funny that there are many adamantly pro-life people who probably have health insurance that covers abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3920.html

am i the only other person who finds this hysterical? thanks for that information!!!!!

 

[7starmantis]

am i the only other person who finds this hysterical? thanks for that information!!!!!

To be sincere I think their issue is more tax money ("federal dollars" and all that) covering it.

 

[bigal40]

am i the only other person who finds this hysterical? thanks for that information!!!!!

The article says 54% of private health plans don't cover abortions. Where do you get that adamantly pro-life people have plans that cover abortion?