Healthcare for uninsured should be solved privately.

[pocketfullofshells]

Health care for the uninsured should be taken up by the privately? what like the free market that already has left them with no insurance that's affordable?

My friend is in the hospital today, because she could not get her meds...she came in for a refill and was told it would be 400 for a months supply...but if she ordered them this different way...they would be affordable...so she had to go a few days with the meds...I dont understand why...all I know is its Fed up, and I am sick of this bull**** system we have in place.

There are many ways it could be reformed...but I know this....it must be reformed major . and Soon.

 

[Andy]

I bet if we got rid of the attorneys suing over everything the cost of medical would go down. I think they call it tort reform? I cant prove it but I think its the reason doctors have to cost so much. What do you think Andy?

Although I support tort reform in general, I am not convinced it's the driving force, or even the majority of the problem. A good while back, I read a report on the high cost of Malpractice Insurance, and not surprisingly, only the doctors that had many claims against them, were the ones facing unusually high insurance premiums.

A larger problem has to do with mandated minimum coverage. Different states have different minimum required coverage, and logically, states with high minimums, often have much higher premiums.

The same thing can be seen with Auto insurance, between here and Canada. In Canada, Auto Insurance is nationalized, and at the same time requires a minimum of $1,000,000 in coverage. Of course, Canadian auto insurance is often double or triple the monthly premium here, even in locations that allow private auto insurance.

That said...
Tort reform is important. Right now, we have a system that some call the "Legal Lotto". Because often people team up with lawyers, to file frivolous law suits against anyone they can, in hopes of scoring a hit. They have nothing to lose, and a chance at gain.

The simplest answer, is a loser pays all system. Currently, if I make up that Top Gun damaged my car, he would have to hire an legal counsel to fend off my lawsuit, and at the end would end up losing thousands of dollars just to have a trumped up, law suit, tossed out of court.

Under the loser-pays-all system, the person who lost such a faulty law suit, would have to pay for the court costs, and the expenses of dependent against his BS suit.

The problem there is, the law isn't perfect, and nor is the judgments of the court. Conceivably a person with a justified law suit, could lose, and then end up worse than before. However... at the rate things are going, it may well be better than the injustice of extravagant frivolous law suits we currently enjoy as a society.

 

[Andy]

Health care for the uninsured should be taken up by the privately? what like the free market that already has left them with no insurance that's affordable?

What do you consider affordable? I've seen people that made minimum wage, and had health insurance. I have health insurance, and last year I barely broke $20K income. So what exactly do you consider "no insurance that's affordable"?

My friend is in the hospital today, because she could not get her meds...she came in for a refill and was told it would be 400 for a months supply...but if she ordered them this different way...they would be affordable...so she had to go a few days with the meds...I dont understand why...all I know is its Fed up, and I am sick of this bull**** system we have in place.

Over 1,000 cancer patients refused drugs by NHS managers

The Rarer Cancers Forum, which compiled the data, called on ministers to intervene to end a "bizarre and demeaning" postcode lottery, which it said was leaving patients to die.

Their analysis shows that almost all patients in some areas were given the often expensive drugs, while in other areas no patient received them.

The call comes just days after patients groups and doctors reacted angrily to a decision that four kidney cancer drugs were not cost effective enough to be provided on the NHS.

Let me explain a bit what's happening in the UK right now. The system can't pay for itself. There's more patients, then there is money. So the government has instituted a "postcode lottery" where people with one postcode (read zip code) can get expensive drugs, and people from another postcode can not. This would be like people from the New York zip code being given the best of drugs, while people from Buck Creek, Indiana can not.

Moreover, some new more effective, but more costly, drugs for kidney cancer, are simply not available at all. It's not that they are too expensive to get, or that they are difficult to find, they are governmentally prohibited from selling them.

So you want to complain because your friend need $400 for his meds? Tell me, how much better off would your friend be, if the drugs were not available at all, or if he was just in the wrong postal code to get them?

The problem with the socialist view is, you are very good at complaining about how things are. Not very good at seeing how much worse it could be.

 

[top gun]

I bet if we got rid of the attorneys suing over everything the cost of medical would go down. I think they call it tort reform? I cant prove it but I think its the reason doctors have to cost so much. What do you think Andy?

Unfortunately the the vast majority of the Tort reform argument is a red herring.

If you or your mother or child was seriously and permanently injured, maybe even killed by a doctors proven and avoidable malpractice in a court of law would you just happily say... Oh, that's alright I don't want to raise healthcare costs???

Certainly not! The fact is our judicial system is the ONLY check and balance a private citizen has when it comes to medical malpractice. That right of recourse should not be taken away from you and I... and the rest of the American people.

I understand what you are saying though. And I understand that it seems like some judgments are sky high... and I agree some are. And there may be some fair way to cap some types of damages that are proven to be not extremely egregious.

But let me tell you what happens in all the many cases you never hear about. This actually happened to me.

My daughter when she was in high school was inside a friends house where for no reason a dog they had (a Chow/Rottweiler mix) snapped and mauled my daughter. The people who owned the dog not only had Homeowners Insurance but this same dog had attacked & hospitalized a family member (a cousin) in the past.

Now at the time she was Captain of the Girls Varsity Basketball Team. She had to go to the emergency room and have several fairly serious bits and scratches worked on. She was out of school for a week and couldn't even practice with her team let alone play for over a month.

And the INSURANCE COMPANY... they tried to pay NOTHING!!! I had to... HAD TO... take time off work and hire an attorney because the Insurance Company even though they knew they were TOTALLY LIABLE with legal exposure all over the place... practiced a very common technique of denying claims just to see if they might just not be pursued.

In other words they purposely wanted to do the wrong thing and try to avoid their legal obligation. That's what in reality happens a lot.

After I hired the attorney we went up all the way up to the trial and then finally settled. But I can tell you this. In the end the Insurance Company paid out MORE than I would have accepted if they just would have been straight forward with us. Of course my daughter didn't get all that money her attorney took a third... BUT THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO GET NOTHING!

And that expense was no ones fault other than the Insurance Company... certainly not the injured party.

 

[Andy]

First off... in the past you've already told us you make 13K per year Andy.

The very fact that you at a blistering 13K per year salary...

Once again, you show yourself to be the arrogant elitist bigot that you are. You have prejudged me once again, because of my income, and you didn't even get the number right. At the same time, you didn't contradict or even dispute one single point I made.

You truly are a gleaming example of the people you support.

...think people making 25K per year are rolling in extra money to pay for things other than rent, food, utilities, basic car expenses and gasoline is... well... just AMAZING!!!

Well, let's think this through. You live in an elitist fantasy world, while I live in the income range of those you claim can't buy health insurance.

Between the two of us, which one likely has a better idea of whether or not someone in the lower income bracket can afford insurance? An arrogant jerk who prejudges people who do not earn as much as himself, or one who is in the lower income bracket? I'm going to wager the guy who's in the lower income bracket.

Further, since I am earning very little, and yet can afford rent, food, utilities, basic car expenses, and fuel, and still have a health insurance policy, doesn't that mean it can be done?

Finely, by any general mathematical measure, is $170 a month, to someone earning $25K a year, doable? I suggest it is. $170/mo is only $2040 a year. That's only 8% of your total income. In fact, Social Security is 15%. Let's allow opt-out for Social Security, and everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and then some.

 

[Andy]

Unfortunately the the vast majority of the Tort reform argument is a red herring.

If you or your mother or child was seriously and permanently injured, maybe even killed by a doctors proven and avoidable malpractice in a court of law would you just happily say... Oh, that's alright I don't want to raise healthcare costs???

Tort reform is meant to reduce only frivolous law suits. Not valid ones. Tort reform would not prevent you from taking a doctor that has a history of malpractice, to court.

In short, the only red herring here, is your post.

 

[Pandora]

Although I support tort reform in general, I am not convinced it's the driving force, or even the majority of the problem.
A larger problem has to do with mandated minimum coverage. Different states have different minimum required coverage, and logically, states with high minimums, often have much higher premiums.

The same thing can be seen with Auto insurance, between here and Canada. In Canada, Auto Insurance is nationalized, and at the same time requires a minimum of $1,000,000 in coverage. Of course, Canadian auto insurance is often double or triple the monthly premium here, even in locations that allow private auto insurance.

That said...
Tort reform is important. Right now, we have a system that some call the "Legal Lotto". Because often people team up with lawyers, to file frivolous law suits against anyone they can, in hopes of scoring a hit. They have nothing to lose, and a chance at gain.

The simplest answer, is a loser pays all system. Currently, if I make up that Top Gun damaged my car, he would have to hire an legal counsel to fend off my lawsuit, and at the end would end up losing thousands of dollars just to have a trumped up, law suit, tossed out of court.

Under the loser-pays-all system, the person who lost such a faulty law suit, would have to pay for the court costs, and the expenses of dependent against his BS suit.

The problem there is, the law isn't perfect, and nor is the judgments of the court. Conceivably a person with a justified law suit, could lose, and then end up worse than before. However... at the rate things are going, it may well be better than the injustice of extravagant frivolous law suits we currently enjoy as a society.

You have some good points there, I will have to ponder. One thing I don't agree with is this part of what you said

A good while back, I read a report on the high cost of Malpractice Insurance, and not surprisingly, only the doctors that had many claims against them, were the ones facing unusually high insurance premiums.

Any doctor unlucky enough to have someone sue happy for a patient would have the high insurance and it would not always be the doctors fault, yet it would raise his prices for everyone.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What do you consider affordable? I've seen people that made minimum wage, and had health insurance. I have health insurance, and last year I barely broke $20K income. So what exactly do you consider "no insurance that's affordable"?



Over 1,000 cancer patients refused drugs by NHS managers

​

Let me explain a bit what's happening in the UK right now. The system can't pay for itself. There's more patients, then there is money. So the government has instituted a "postcode lottery" where people with one postcode (read zip code) can get expensive drugs, and people from another postcode can not. This would be like people from the New York zip code being given the best of drugs, while people from Buck Creek, Indiana can not.

Moreover, some new more effective, but more costly, drugs for kidney cancer, are simply not available at all. It's not that they are too expensive to get, or that they are difficult to find, they are governmentally prohibited from selling them.

So you want to complain because your friend need $400 for his meds? Tell me, how much better off would your friend be, if the drugs were not available at all, or if he was just in the wrong postal code to get them?

The problem with the socialist view is, you are very good at complaining about how things are. Not very good at seeing how much worse it could be.

at 400 bucks a month, they may as well not exist. guess what, news flash, alot of people dont have a extra 400 a month ...and thats while she pays for health coverage as well...

And your, well it could be worse ....nice idea. lets not try to make thinsg better becuse it could be worse. Then again when I had no coverage, realy what was going to be worse....since I had nothing anyway.

All you can do is sit and say dont fix anything, and its all great...and ignore the millions who cant afford any coverage, even more who are deep in debt with medical bills, comanies that cant afford to keep paying for there workers care, and others who have coverage, and still cant afford the extra costs, or just barly can afford the cost of coverage....

Yet we spend more on health care then other nations...to not cover anyone. But feel free to just enjoy the system that could have killed my friend becuse even though they had the pills there , if they have them mailed from someplace else, she can get them at a huge discount ...and being that she for some reason did not just have 400 bucks laying around had to wait a few days....to get the affordable ones. Its a great system, enjoy it. Hope you lose your job and I want to watch you get coverage with no government help. See how big your Free market ideas are, when you get sick then.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Once again, you show yourself to be the arrogant elitist bigot that you are. You have prejudged me once again, because of my income, and you didn't even get the number right. At the same time, you didn't contradict or even dispute one single point I made.

You truly are a gleaming example of the people you support.



Well, let's think this through. You live in an elitist fantasy world, while I live in the income range of those you claim can't buy health insurance.

Between the two of us, which one likely has a better idea of whether or not someone in the lower income bracket can afford insurance? An arrogant jerk who prejudges people who do not earn as much as himself, or one who is in the lower income bracket? I'm going to wager the guy who's in the lower income bracket.

Further, since I am earning very little, and yet can afford rent, food, utilities, basic car expenses, and fuel, and still have a health insurance policy, doesn't that mean it can be done?

Finely, by any general mathematical measure, is $170 a month, to someone earning $25K a year, doable? I suggest it is. $170/mo is only $2040 a year. That's only 8% of your total income. In fact, Social Security is 15%. Let's allow opt-out for Social Security, and everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and then some.

How about we can opt out of Military spending? and get Health care?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You have some good points there, I will have to ponder. One thing I don't agree with is this part of what you said



Any doctor unlucky enough to have someone sue happy for a patient would have the high insurance and it would not always be the doctors fault, yet it would raise his prices for everyone.

Or maybe the Dr sucks? its like saying well he has high car insurance, he must just be a unlucky driver....or more likey they are a bad driver?

 

[top gun]

Andy;89242]Once again, you show yourself to be the arrogant elitist bigot that you are. You have prejudged me once again, because of my income, and you didn't even get the number right. At the same time, you didn't contradict or even dispute one single point I made.

You truly are a gleaming example of the people you support.

Well, let's think this through. You live in an elitist fantasy world, while I live in the income range of those you claim can't buy health insurance.

Nothing "elitist" about it. I'm merely posting what you have said in the past during our discussions about your 82 Buick.

Between the two of us, which one likely has a better idea of whether or not someone in the lower income bracket can afford insurance? An arrogant jerk who prejudges people who do not earn as much as himself, or one who is in the lower income bracket? I'm going to wager the guy who's in the lower income bracket.

Further, since I am earning very little, and yet can afford rent, food, utilities, basic car expenses, and fuel, and still have a health insurance policy, doesn't that mean it can be done?

No because you are "just telling us that's the case" and even if true you'd still be just one example. There are millions of other examples unlike you.

As far as me... just because I've went to school, worked hard all my life, ran small businesses and bettered myself to a point where at 52 I'm doing OK doesn't mean I don't remember starting with nothing.

I remember a time when my first daughter was born being self employed and just starting my first Body Shop not being able to afford heath insurance, being on the WIC program to get free baby formula and even going to a church food bank a couple times...

so you can "can" all your childish goofball rhetoric that you and you alone are the only one who understands economic struggles.

In fact I could even say that I might have never been able to devote myself to building my own business had my family not gotten some help at the start and probably wouldn't be making the 60K-70K per year I make today.

Finely, by any general mathematical measure, is $170 a month, to someone earning $25K a year, doable? I suggest it is. $170/mo is only $2040 a year. That's only 8% of your total income. In fact, Social Security is 15%. Let's allow opt-out for Social Security, and everyone will be able to afford health insurance, and then some.

The fact is getting coverage (and you've not posted the plan, just a number) is only part of the equation. You then have deductibles and co-pays. If you can't afford them on top of the base coverage amount or anyone in the family has a pre-existing condition the base policy is worthless if it's obtainable at all.

We will get to better healthcare as President Obama works with all groups as he is doing as we speak to get us to a better overall healthcare system that is less expensive to everyday hard working Americans!

 

[Pandora]

Or maybe the Dr sucks? its like saying well he has high car insurance, he must just be a unlucky driver....or more likey they are a bad driver?

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as frivolous law suites?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as frivolous law suites?

no I suggesting that if you get lots of lawsuits....maybe they there is a reason.

 

[Pandora]

no I suggesting that if you get lots of lawsuits....maybe they there is a reason.

I am not a doctor so I dont know exactly how it works
but if I get one speeding ticket my insurance goes up


If one or two morons sue for stupid reasons that would increase the cost of the doctors insurance and he would have no choice but to pass the cost on to his patients.

I would think anyway, but I am not a doctor so I dont know exactly how it works. I just know there are tons and tons of really stupid cases of people suing

 

[Petunia]

What I do know about malpractice insurance for doctors..is in my area it is 100 thousand dollars per year...that was what my Dr. told me he paid about 3 years ago, so that price may be higher now. How do you think that adds to healthcare costs?