DisneySteve: more healthcare problems

[sweeps]

Hey JC, a Utopia where everyone cheerfully gives up a large portion of their wealth to help the sick and the poor and the jobless sounds really great, doesn't it. Well, it's time to wake up and get a FAT DOSE of reality. That has never happened and will never happen.

It's like trickle-down economics... great in theory, a joke in practice.

[jc3900]

Hey JC, a Utopia where everyone cheerfully gives up a large portion of their wealth to help the sick and the poor and the jobless sounds really great, doesn't it. Well, it's time to wake up and get a FAT DOSE of reality. That has never happened and will never happen.

It's like trickle-down economics... great in theory, a joke in practice.

Here is the problem sweeps, who will nationalize healthcare hurt the most. Take a guess. Nationalized healthcare will hurt anyone with money. Nationalized Healthcare will screw these people over just like income tax, just like social security, just like medicare, just like medicaid, just like unemployment, and just like welfare. Sweeps, you and seeker talk about equality, but yet anyone who starts to make more and more money is completely hammered by taxes to pay for these idiotic programs. And what benefits do these people get from so many taxes, nothing. All of the money goes back to bloated beurocrocy and the people who are DEPENDANT on the beurocrocy. You can't give free healthcare to poor people without screwing the people on the high end of the spectrum. Why don't you read my signature and see if you can understand what it means.

"He was guilty of nothing, except that he earned his own fortune and never forgot that it was his."

Listen, our country is going bankrupt and it is not because of overburdening healthcare, it is because of an overexpanded government. Right now we are 9,000,000,000,000$ in debt. That is 3 times our annual budget. We average an 8% increase in the federal budget every year since 1900. We have deficit spending every year and the deficits continually are growing bigger and bigger. The madness needs to stop now. The solution isn't more government programs, it is CUTTING government programs. Oh but I guess acording to sweeps, cutting government spending is just another stupid Utopian idea of mine.

[sweeps]

JC, which is it.. do you want to hang on to your fortune, or do you want to demonstrate your illustrious moral responsibility and help those in need? You seem to contradict yourself on this.

I don't remember where I read this, but Americans give about 2% of their wealth to charity. And that figure has stayed pretty consistent, regardless of the economic situation and tax laws in effect at the time. Private charities can never come close to helping those in need as well as the government has.

ALSO you make it sound like private charities are these trustworthy, efficient mechanisms for redistributing wealth. Social security is reportedly 97% efficient with its funds. Show me more than a handful of charities that are that efficient. Churches -- look at how many preachers we have with mansions, fancy cars and private jets -- yeah, that's trustworthy. Also I like that the government is largely unbiased. It won't not give money to someone because they're not of a certain race, religion or sexual orientation for example.

Again, I think a lot can be done to eliminate waste and I don't advocate raising taxes any more than they are. But I think they are largely fair. What I don't need is to hear about how you have a monopoly on moral responsibility.

[jc3900]

JC, which is it.. do you want to hang on to your fortune, or do you want to demonstrate your illustrious moral responsibility and help those in need? You seem to contradict yourself on this.

Sweeps, the meaning of the quote is that your money belongs soly to you and it is yours to give and yours to keep.

ALSO you make it sound like private charities are these trustworthy, efficient mechanisms for redistributing wealth. Social security is reportedly 97% efficient with its funds. Show me more than a handful of charities that are that efficient. Churches -- look at how many preachers we have with mansions, fancy cars and private jets -- yeah, that's trustworthy. Also I like that the government is largely unbiased. It won't not give money to someone because they're not of a certain race, religion or sexual orientation for example.

HAHAHA. Oh man did you choose a bad program to place your mark of efficiancy on. If you mean social security is efficiant at running a ponzi or pyramid scheme than you would be right. Unlucky for you I can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. The average income is about 40,000 dollars. Each worker has 12.4% of their income taken away from social security. So that means each year you could have invested 4800 dollars. Putting that into a retirement calculator with 3% inflation and a 9% return over 40 years, the end result is 750,000$ net of inflation and 2,500,000$ in nominal inflated dollars. Now first of all the people that our currently on social security are getting all of their money from the current workforce. That is, all of the money that current social security recipients have put into the system has been used up allready. The average social security payout is about 12000 dollars. Using another handy retirement calculator, you would need about 200,000 dollars to get a 12000 dollar payout increasing with inflation yearly. Wow, I just destroyed that comment of yours. If you were given the option to opt out of social security and get your money instead or stay in social security, what would you do. My guess is that you would opt out immidiately.

Again, I think a lot can be done to eliminate waste and I don't advocate raising taxes any more than they are. But I think they are largely fair.

Wow, you just keep digging yourself into a hole. Are system is fair? I guess you are right in that it is a fair system in how it steels from almost everyone. The average tax rate in america is 34%. If you think this is fair, than I am going to assume you are a member of the socialist pary.

[sweeps]

Listen, JC, I get it. You're a freshman in college and you have all the answers. Everything's black and white. I'm either an Ayn Rand fanatic, or I'm a flaming socialist -- nothing in between.

You seem to be an intelligent guy. But I'm guessing you haven't had to deal with many of the things that a poor or middle class family has to deal with on a daily basis. Have you or a family member had to deal with serious health problems? Been laid off unexpectedly? Had to take care of aging parents? Do you know what it's like to be poor -- poor enough to not be sure how you're going to keep food on the table at the end of the month?

Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth, or the ability to dunk a basketball, or the intelligence to work in a 6-figure occupation.

This is why there's a gray area, a middle ground. The trick is striking that balance between promoting productivity and personal responsibility and helping out those who are temporarily or permanently unable to be a fully productive member of society.

[Seeker]

Nationalized healthcare will hurt anyone with money. Nationalized Healthcare will screw these people over just like income tax, just like social security, just like medicare, just like medicaid, just like unemployment, and just like welfare. Sweeps, you and seeker talk about equality, but yet anyone who starts to make more and more money is completely hammered by taxes to pay for these idiotic programs. And what benefits do these people get from so many taxes, nothing. All of the money goes back to bloated beurocrocy and the people who are DEPENDANT on the beurocrocy. You can't give free healthcare to poor people without screwing the people on the high end of the spectrum.

JC, you keep saying the money you earn is "yours" -- yours to give or yours to keep. Even Jesus said give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's. It's not yours entirely. You work to help yourself yes, but you work to help others too. What you do, helps the business prosper and that helps you. But the taxes you pay also helps the business and yourself. Life is a circle; you CANNOT help yourself without helping someone else (and yes even the government).

What you have not come to terms with is the fact that the government does not "ask" you to help with medical costs (or taxes) -- they just use your tax dollars as they see fit. If a "Universal Healthcare Plan" comes into reality -- you will not have a choice then either.

Your tax dollars are used for public organizations now... schools, some student loans, libraries, jury services, roads, trash collection, water treatments, police/fire, border patrols, insect control, etc. Are any of these services something you'd want to get rid of? Yes some tax dollars are "wasted" -- but that's not within our control -- we can only do the best we can.

We pay for our right to live here and call ourselves an American citizen through taxes; through government. Without Public Services we'd have old country time law; we'd all be carrying guns.... we'd all probably have much more shorter lives.

The Veterans that have fought (both past and present), for the land on which your property (or future property) is part of America.... that is part of what some of your current tax dollars go toward even now. So you will pay for that old man; you are not forced to do so, you're not even asked; you just do it through your taxes. Unless you want to be a hermit, you will not have a choice.

There's also the fact that you can be struck by a car or injured and/or disabled to such an extent that you cannot work. Because of one accident, you're entire life can change. Should that person be penalized with little or not healthcare because of this? Should his or her family and friends be penalized? What if there is no "family?"

A person disabled through no fault of his own -- a complete accident -- what does he do? This happens every day; in all parts of the country. Heathcare is DENIED to many people. Many many people have no options or choices for healthcare.

Some millions of people are working as contractors; not eligible for medical care of any kind except through their own pocket. Do you know how many people work part-time jobs because their workplace does not want to pay full time (+ insurances) and would rather hire two part-time workers than one full-time?

Do you know how much money insurance can cost someone trying to obtain it for himself and his family without support through a business plan? If that sole person happens to have a disabled child, do you know that that person will be denied or will be charged such an outrageous amount that there IS NO OPTION?

You define "community" as friends, family, church; but technically (I know I was not supposed to argue technicalities) even the dictionary includes "government" as a definition of community. As a citizen of this country, you partake of government benefits and costs; like it or not.

I agree with Sweeps, you are young like my nephew (in fact you are exactly his age), and all you see are the top and bottom; no middle ground, and no grey spots. Life is full of greys; and there's no "one" solution that will make everyone happy.

You speak of "morals" -- I am more than willing to contribute my fair share.... for all people. I fully recognize that the dollars I earn are not mine forever. Your views on "your" earnings seem rather bleak to me. If I earn more than I can contribute more; I am not a glutton and FULLY willing to contribute my fair share through taxes and whatever extra means that become defined. If I can continue to fulfill my family needs, then I have not problem sharing the excess.

My "job" on this Earth is to help anyone who needs my help if I have any means of doing so; I accept that task and welcome it. And I hope that if at some point down the line, if I need extra help, that someone else would be as kind and as generous (within their reasonable ability) to share as well.

[flatrock]

Health insurance

In my opinion at least some of the health insurers out there are complete criminals and should be imprisoned. I had a close family member who worked for the same company for a number of years and reliably paid their health insurance premiums. In an accident that happened in the blink of an eye they were paralyzed below the neck for life (spinal cord snapped). No possible chance of ever walking again. There was a thrid party with some repsonsibility and their insurer agreed to pay to the limits of their policy. The health insurance company lawyers attempted to claim almost 100% of the insurnace payment under the theory that since they had provided moneys and the patient was "recovered" it was theirs. Forget the fact the patient was permanently severely disabled for life and would require a carekeeper the rest of their natural life. Of course this led to a prolonged legal fight and amazingly in this instance the patient did get the majority of insurance settlement minus some hefty lawyer fees. I dont think most people ever consider they may have to hire a lawyer to fight their own health insurance company. In the course of visiting this patient in various hospitals & rehab centers I often ran into people with similar stories. They had insurance but when they needed it after years of paying high premiums the insurer used every means possible to avoid paying. No wonder they have "record" profits.

[Scanner]

I wonder why medicaid was so cheap. Maybe because the taxpayers, including the middle class, fronted the bill. So don't give me these $5.00 copay numbers and say everything was fine and dandy. That doesn't include the nearly 10 percent of the federal budget that funds medicaid.

Medicaid is a state-run program, JC but I don't think I said, "Everything was fine and dandy."

What I said was, "I never had such good healthcare as when my son was on Medicaid for a year" and that that didn't make sense to me.

POOR: great healthcare
MIDDLE CLASS: ****ty healthcare
RICH: great healthcare

Does this seem right?

First of all there is nothing with making money off insurance. I want them to make record profits, so long as they are providing great service.

But that's just it - they don't provide great service. You are young, probably never had to make a call to Blue Cross. . .you sit on hold for 20 minutes, get bounced around.

You want to know who the best group is to contact as far as customer service?

Yup. . .you guessed, good old Pinko, Commie Medicare. I call them up. . .get through right away, the clerks are knowledgable. They are a bit particular in filing the claim but I get my check in 10 days.

I know this goes in the face of your Conservative Values but it's true - Pinko Medicare beats Yankee Capitalism in customer service.

Do I want a bad system though, no. The system is what needs to be changed.

And that's what I am doing - proposing overhauling it.

Let Blue Cross and Aetna cut the checks but don't set policy (do administrative work for Medicare). They don't have a right to exist anymore.

Health insurance should be more like car insurance in the way that you use it to avoid catastrophic injuries/illnesses. Also, the legal malpractice issue needs to be resolved. Maybe with a good tort reform bill. I don't know. All I know is that if you get nationalized healthcare, it won't be free or cheap. Currently 35% of the federal budget is devoted to healthcare.

Source? I don't believe that statistic.

Waging expensive wars has to be the biggest expense we are incurring right now.

Wait till you include a FULL nationalized healthcare in that budget. It's going to shoot through the roof. 60% ,70% , 70%+ who knows. Also, I have no idea how you can look around the world and see this as a good idea. They come to the United States for Health Care. For MRI's they go to buffalo. They get surgery's done in the US that otherwise would have taken a waiting list and many crucial months of time. There must be a good reason for this? The reason is that healthcare like a lot of things must be rationed someway or another. If it isn't by price, then it will be by deaths and lower quality care.

I am all for rationing.

BTW, your arguments of "It's my money" are amusing.

[jc3900]

Source? I don't believe that statistic.

Waging expensive wars has to be the biggest expense we are incurring right now.

Sorry about the stat. It is actually 23% on healthcare and 12% on unemployment and welfare. Just so you know, defense is 19% of the budget. Although, I don't believe what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanastan, or the rest of the world is really justified, you must have a strong defense. With that said, I think the defense budget is probably twice what it should be.

United States Budget and major programs

Social Security: 20.2%
Defense:19%
Medicare:13.6%
Unemployment and Welfare:12.7%
Medicaid: 9.5%
Interest on Debt:8.4%

So lets see, about 85% of our federal budget is spent just on those programs. Take out the defense budget and you have 65% of our budget going to entitlements. And you guys want to add nationalized healthcare. Sorry, but I think I'll pass on that one.

source: United States federal budget, 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jodi]

I would be interested to know what percent of the spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and social security (disability) is spent on individuals with developmental disabilities. I work with this population, and I know the amount must be enormous. I think there are in excess of 100,000 individuals who receive services in NY state alone - most receive a combination of social security disability and/or SSI, Medicaid and many of them receive Medicare, if their parents are disabled or of retirement age. And for many of them, the cost of care can easily exceed $100k, $200k, or $1 million per year. And I'm not saying this to imply that it's wrong, because someone needs to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, but to point out a very large segment of the population who needs subsidized health care. The majority of the clients that I work with function in the profound to severe range of mental retardation, some with feeding tubes, paralysis, etc. Even if they at some point were covered by their parents' insurance, most got kicked off when the moved out of their parents home (usually around ages 20-30) into a group homes, congregate care facilities, etc. as their parents can no longer care for them as they age. So, what would happen to them in a private pay system? There's no black and white here. In fact, out of the 13 people on my caseload, only the two who still live at home with their families are covered by private insurance (although both also have Medicaid through a Waiver program to allow payment for services specific to their developmental needs). Everyone else is covered by Medicaid, and all but one is also covered by Medicare.

[sweeps]

NYT: Many Doctors, Many Tests, No Rhyme or Reason

The most important factor, however, may be the perverse financial incentives of our current system.

Doctors are usually reimbursed for whatever they bill. As reimbursement rates have declined in recent years, most doctors have adapted by increasing the quantity of services. If you cut the amount of air you take in per breath, the only way to maintain ventilation is to breathe faster.

Overconsultation and overtesting have now become facts of the medical profession. The culture in practice is to grab patients and generate volume. “Medicine has become like everything else,” a doctor told me recently. “Everything moves because of money.”

[disneysteve]

"Doctors are usually reimbursed for whatever they bill. As reimbursement rates have declined in recent years, most doctors have adapted by increasing the quantity of services. If you cut the amount of air you take in per breath, the only way to maintain ventilation is to breathe faster."

Very true. In a fee-for-service plan, doctors get paid based on the work they do. If the amount paid per visit and per procedure decreases, they need to do more visits and more procedures to make up the difference. There's no way around that. Expenses don't go down. Staff salaries, rent, utilities, insurance premiums, license fees, etc. don't go down. So doctors are forced to see more patients per hour and do more procedures to keep income relatively stable.