Third parties, who do you like more in the election

Or another example:

17-year old with Cystic Fibrosis turns 18, and is no longer covered by parent's insurance. However, even then, family is poor and he himself has little money to spare as he is also trying to get into college, etc. Now, CF may not be fatal and require emergency treatment, it is a chronic and potentially debilitating disease. Should this guy be denied treatment because he can't afford it? At least with universal healthcare, people will have something far more reliable to fall back on than let's say... charity-run clinics. They may not be perfect, but damn, at least you'll be able to count on getting important medicine and treatment.

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

The billing/payment option sounds like the most fair to me, people who can't afford medical insurance or bills should maybe receive some kind of discount from regular costs perhaps, the cost of medicine today is way above what it should be also, if richard nixon didn't mess up the system we would still have cheap prescriptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

The billing/payment option sounds like the most fair to me, people who can't afford medical insurance or bills should maybe receive some kind of discount from regular costs perhaps, the cost of medicine today is way above what it should be also, if richard nixon didn't mess up the system we would still have cheap prescriptions.

---

So you put a person into further debt because of vital treatment? Just because they can't afford it?

The number one problem with our healthcare system can be epitomized by looking at the following relationship:

The more insurance claims that are rejected (rightly or wrongly), the more money an insurance company makes.

What is an insurance company's incentive to do what people pay them to do? Companies need money to do business and thrive. They make their money by denying the most expensive treatments, regardless of the effectiveness of that treatment.

Drill down to the insurance company's employees. In the interest of motivating the employees to help the company thrive, they give large bonuses to those who help take in more money. Naturally, as in any business where performance in one area means more money in their pockets, those employees will seek ways to take in more money, while paying out less.

But the only avenue they have to make that happen is to deny claims. The more claims they deny, the bigger their personal paycheck.

There is something VERY broken about a healthcare system where those who are supposed to supply healthcare have a vested interest in denying it. Privatized medicine may not be at fault, but I'd like to hear any suggestions at all that have to do with addressing this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

---

That's the point of human rights though. The point is that the government takes in money to make sure certain rights exist even for the poorest. You might as well go anarchy if you think there's no moral problem with people living below the breadline amongst people with private jets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or another example:

17-year old with Cystic Fibrosis turns 18, and is no longer covered by parent's insurance. However, even then, family is poor and he himself has little money to spare as he is also trying to get into college, etc. Now, CF may not be fatal and require emergency treatment, it is a chronic and potentially debilitating disease. Should this guy be denied treatment because he can't afford it? At least with universal healthcare, people will have something far more reliable to fall back on than let's say... charity-run clinics. They may not be perfect, but damn, at least you'll be able to count on getting important medicine and treatment.

---

How long do you want him to have to wait for the surgery? At least with a capitalist system, he can get the surgery very soon if he has insurance. If he can't afford the $150 a month for insurance because of college, he needs to put off college. It is his choice one way or the other. We can't wreck the U.S. healthcare system because some people might make bad choices.

We lead the world in medical technology, so it is in the best interest of the entire world for us not to not go public school with our healthcare system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

The number one problem with our healthcare system can be epitomized by looking at the following relationship:

The more insurance claims that are rejected (rightly or wrongly), the more money an insurance company makes.

What is an insurance company's incentive to do what people pay them to do? Companies need money to do business and thrive. They make their money by denying the most expensive treatments, regardless of the effectiveness of that treatment.

Drill down to the insurance company's employees. In the interest of motivating the employees to help the company thrive, they give large bonuses to those who help take in more money. Naturally, as in any business where performance in one area means more money in their pockets, those employees will seek ways to take in more money, while paying out less.

But the only avenue they have to make that happen is to deny claims. The more claims they deny, the bigger their personal paycheck.

There is something VERY broken about a healthcare system where those who are supposed to supply healthcare have a vested interest in denying it. Privatized medicine may not be at fault, but I'd like to hear any suggestions at all that have to do with addressing this problem.

---

That is why people need to read what they are signing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is why people need to read what they are signing.

---

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. What is there to read and sign that prevents this behavior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. What is there to read and sign that prevents this behavior?

---

The terms of the insurance contract. It is not like an insurance company is not bound by an agreement. They do what they are required to do by contract. They don't have the liberty to reject just any medical bill they want to reject. If they did, they would pay for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How long do you want him to have to wait for the surgery? At least with a capitalist system, he can get the surgery very soon if he has insurance. If he can't afford the $150 a month for insurance because of college, he needs to put off college. It is his choice one way or the other. We can't wreck the U.S. healthcare system because some people might make bad choices.

We lead the world in medical technology, so it is in the best interest of the entire world for us not to not go public school with our healthcare system.

---

If you pay the government so much in tax, then you should expect so much from the government in return in terms of service. However, as insurance has shown over and over again, it can't be relied on either. So here we have a situation with people either not being able to afford insurance or getting screwed over by not having the appropriate/best/premium insurance, or the government is not meeting standards. The best solution? Have both public and privately-run hospitals.

Why? Because competition is what really drives medical improvements. Private hospitals may get the most money, but if public hospitals give the same service but with government money, then the private hospitals have to improve in order to compete. In turn, this drives the public hospitals to keep up with the privately-run ones in order to remain a viable alternative.

In the end of the day, it is folly to rely on solely one system. The government should provide a means to cover even the poorest citizens and do so in a decent fashion. If everyone chips in, then everyone should get something out of it, and if the individual chooses private, then he shouldn't be penalised by shitty insurance companies nor be barred from public hospitals. Certain things require regulation in order to make sure everybody gets a decent service, especially a vital one such as Healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The terms of the insurance contract. It is not like an insurance company is not bound by an agreement. They do what they are required to do by contract. They don't have the liberty to reject just any medical bill they want to reject. If they did, they would pay for nothing.

---

I'm sorry, but this is a bit naive. The relationship I described applies to every single insurance company today. "Denied claims = more money" works for each and every one of them. Some are worse than others, to be sure, but there is no language on an insurance contract that will betray their tendencies.

There is a wealth of available court testimony from insurance company ex-employees regarding the kinds of requests management made to them. To hear some of this testimony is to question whether those in charge have any feelings towards their fellow humans at all.

We need to do what the Dutch do.

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm sorry, but this is a bit naive. The relationship I described applies to every single insurance company today. "Denied claims = more money" works for each and every one of them. Some are worse than others, to be sure, but there is no language on an insurance contract that will betray their tendencies.

There is a wealth of available court testimony from insurance company ex-employees regarding the kinds of requests management made to them. To hear some of this testimony is to question whether those in charge have any feelings towards their fellow humans at all.

---

What, according to you, stops insurance companies from denying ALL claims, and why would there ever be a court case over a denied claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The best solution? Have both public and privately-run hospitals.

---

That is something to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What, according to you, stops insurance companies from denying ALL claims,

---

Simple economics. No payout means nobody wants or needs insurance at all. There is obviously a tipping point in either direction, and the companies are very aware of where that point is.

Quote:

---

...and why would there ever be a court case over a denied claim?

---

The testimony I heard was not directly regarding any specific denied claim, but about company practices in general. Although of course there are countless cases over denied claims.

If you believe you should be covered for an operation that saves your life, and end up with a bill for $250k instead, wouldn't you consider sueing to get the cost of the operation paid for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If you believe you should be covered for an operation that saves your life, and end up with a bill for $250k instead, wouldn't you consider sueing to get the cost of the operation paid for?

---

Why? Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why? Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

---

Wow. Are you seriously not aware that this is happening all the time?
I'd appreciate if you'd watch a these and let me know what you think.


By the way, I'm not talking about socialized medicine pro/con anymore. I'm talking about the evil insurance industry and our broken healthcare in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So you put a person into further debt because of vital treatment? Just because they can't afford it?

---

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up



you know what I'm trying to say?


This is how capitalism works, true capitalism...

Some hate it, some love it...the one's who hate it are the one's who can't get by, and I feel bad for them but its NOT the responsibility of every other american to take care of them, their own life is their responsibility, not everyones.

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

We need to do what the Dutch do.

/thread

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up



you know what I'm trying to say?

---

That's a pointless statement and comparison. You might wanna take a look at the declaration of human rights, in case you know what that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up

you know what I'm trying to say?

---

What I'm getting across is an irrational fear of some concept which won't be caused by Healthcare. Having a public healthcare system will not cause communism.

You pay your taxes, you get government services. So if you pay so much for universal Healthcare, then you should expect that regardless of whether you prefer private or public healthcare, you have not only the choice, but a good enough fall-back measure. This means that even the poorest folk are guaranteed their basic human right to healthcare reliably, whilst everyone else can choose what service they opt for.

To deny people healthcare (proper healthcare that is, not charity hand-outs and clinics) is to deprive them of one basic human right. This is not a question of communism/socialism, this about actually making sure people can live decent lives regardless of where they fit on the socio-economic scale, especially if this is a developed country like the US. At least in the UK, should I need serious surgery for either emergency or non-emergency circumstances, I can rely on the NHS to provide.

I know you guys disagree with my stance but, im sticking with it reguardless of human rights, I'm just a strict strict libertarian I guess.



Before the US healthcare system was ****ed over it was a whole lot better then any universal plan, costs of drugs were low, prices of insurance were low, and everything was truly affordable up and down the line.

Since HMO's and all of that bologna was introduced, prices have just skyrocketed...

NHS would not fix our problems imo in the USA, NHS will not be any better then the sham of a system we have left.

Wat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I know you guys disagree with my stance but, im sticking with it reguardless of human rights, I'm just a strict strict libertarian I guess.

Before the US healthcare system was ****ed over it was a whole lot better then any universal plan, costs of drugs were low, prices of insurance were low, and everything was truly affordable up and down the line.

Since HMO's and all of that bologna was introduced, prices have just skyrocketed...

NHS would not fix our problems imo in the USA, NHS will not be any better then the sham of a system we have left.

---

Probably would work if all the money spent on war was actually diverted into improving the country.

Still, human rights are important, regardless of what stance you take. My solution for the US would be a comprehensive mix of public hospitals (owned and funded by the government, etc) and privately-owned hospitals. That way, you have two systems that overlap and help cover everyone, regardless of where they are on the socio-economic scale. Everyone pays taxes, so they should be guaranteed services on certain things. Also, such a system drives competition between private and public sector, and generally ensures (or more likely ensures) a decent service on both sides. This is generally the case in the UK, but on a smaller scale.

Well, I kind of like THAT idea, it suits people like me who like private, and people like you who like social.

I recommend you run for congress :D

(only if I don't have to pay taxes for dead beats)

guerilla,

What you may not realize is that some people can't get insurance at all, and it has little to do with money. Insurers automatically refuse to cover people with certain histories. My wife was once denied coverage from one company because she had once used a prescription medication for acne. Another company denied her because she is only 5 feet tall. Read that again: She was denied coverage because she is only 5 feet tall.

Pay for it yourself, you say? Ok, let's look at that...

The majority of doctors will not see a patient who does not have insurance even if that patient has cash in his pocket! Cash is not good enough (especially for emergency hospital visits). They all want you to be covered.

As you can probably figure out, this makes it very hard to be treated if you don't qualify to obtain insurance. If you want a system where we can all just pay for ourselves, we don't have that either.

Well, thats where the bluefinger health insurance system comes in :D