Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance

No Vas,



I would rather the goverment bail out the people going bankrupt then spend a trillion dollars just so people don't go bankrupt.



The author of the paper Dr. Himmelstein is the co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. The sampling they used was 1.1% of total bankruptcies in the US and only 29 percent directly blamed medical bills for their bankruptcy, 62 percent had medical bills that totaled more than 10 percent of family income, said an illness was responsible, had lost income due to illness or some other medical factor.?



So 29% directly blamed medical bills directly. The others said it Contributed to the bankruptcy. I mean read this blog everyday people say maybe they HELO'd the house for medical reasons. Sure they did not to mention the Escalade, the Sea Doos the trips to Europe etc oh and I had 10 grand in medical bills.



Not only that the Article I read had the increase at 20% not 46%.



Interesting article countering the claim that universal health care would actually decrease medically related bankruptcies



<a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/06/medical-bills-and-bankruptcy-here-we-go-again.html">Link</a>



Here is what interested me



<blockquote>Just to emphasize the obvious - in many of these medical bankruptcies, it is not the high cost of health care that leads to bankruptcy; it is the loss of employment income due to disability. </blockquote>


This also struck me as a problem.



<blockquote>Among the self-identified factors that are listed as "medical" causes of bankruptcy in Exhibit 2 of the article are the following: illness or injury, birth/addition of new family member, death in family, alcohol or drug addiction, uncontrolled gambling</blockquote>


An uncontrolled gambler went bankrupt and we counted that as a medical bankruptcy in this study.



Again I am not against Universal health care I am against changing unless change will be good.



Anyone that thinks that Canada is the answer to the question should really look at how broke their system really is.
 
<img src="http://www.creditslips.org/.a/6a00d8341cf9b753ef011570f23f35970c-320wi" alt="" />



<a href="http://www.uslaw.com/library/Bankruptcy/Highly_Questionable_Medical_Bankruptcy_Figures_Fraser_Institute.php?item=530196">http://www.uslaw.com/library/Bankruptcy/Highly_Questionable_Medical_Bankruptcy_Figures_Fraser_Institute.php?item=530196</a>



The American numbers are skewed in 2006 thanks to BK legislation, but please explain why we bury Canada in BK filings?
 
<blockquote></blockquote>


On the last WHO (from 2000) ranking Canada which everyone is touting as the way to go finished 30th on the rankings and the US finished 38th. If you read the articles that I posted earlier you would see that those rankings could possibly have skewed the US lower then they should have been. In addition to that some of the higher ranking countries skew their ranking by manipulating what and how the report their numbers. WHO stopped posting the rankings because they claim it is to difficult to compile the info.



<blockquote></blockquote>




Skewed it how much lower? Should we, the RICHEST country in the world, have been 33rd or 32nd? Healthcare and lack of coverage has only gotten worse since 2000. We are still the wealthiest country in the world so there is just no excuse for this.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1247261349]<blockquote></blockquote>


On the last WHO (from 2000) ranking Canada which everyone is touting as the way to go finished 30th on the rankings and the US finished 38th. If you read the articles that I posted earlier you would see that those rankings could possibly have skewed the US lower then they should have been. In addition to that some of the higher ranking countries skew their ranking by manipulating what and how the report their numbers. WHO stopped posting the rankings because they claim it is to difficult to compile the info.



<blockquote></blockquote>




Skewed it how much lower? Should we, the RICHEST country in the world, have been 33rd or 32nd? Healthcare and lack of coverage has only gotten worse since 2000. We are still the wealthiest country in the world so there is just no excuse for this.</blockquote>


If you could read this article....<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail">How stats were compiled</a>



<blockquote>In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA?s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth</blockquote>


That makes our system look better right there.



This is the other article I posted earlier. ?<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/13/newsarticledetail">Article</a>



<blockquote>What is not seen in the figure, however, is that it did this by cutting services to the extent that patient access to care was compromised. For example, block grants to Canadian provinces for health care were cut in 1986, 1989, and (cut IN HALF) in the second half of the 90?s.5 Provinces, in turn, cut funding to hospitals, cut physician fees, limited purchases of new technology, and removed coverage of some services from provincial insurance plans.5 As a result available hospital beds were reduced by 1/3 (6.6/1000 to 4.1/1000) between 1987 and 1995. 6 In Saskatchewan alone, over 50 hospitals were closed. In 2002 it was reported that the Canadian health care system was underfunded by over 5 billion dollars annually!7 Throughout this period, satisfaction with the Canadian health care system fell precipitously.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp101/bp101index.html">Cato Institute Study of WHO statistics and gathering methods</a>



Step your question is why I am hesitent to move to a Universal Health care plan as laid out today.



<blockquote>Skewed it how much lower? Should we, the RICHEST country in the world, have been 33rd or 32nd</blockquote>


To me the answer is no BUT we are trying to model this after the Canadian system which is 30th and again that study is <strong>9 years old</strong> we have no idea where we would rank in relation to Canada today. From what I have read the Canadian system has gotten worse.



How is copying the 30th going to get us to a <strong>significant</strong> improvement.



Listen my son had surgery 3 weeks ago I am out of pocket a big chunk of change. I would have liked it to be free but see how long a hernia surgery takes in Canada.



Here is a recent article about the wait in Canada for that surgery. <a href="http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6219c084-1ede-4da9-843a-208585259a4c">Hernia Surgery wait for babies.</a>



The recommended time is 14 days or less. In Vancouver the <strong>MEDIAN</strong> was 35 days.



How is that worth a TRILLION dollars
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247260699]



<a href="http://www.uslaw.com/library/Bankruptcy/Highly_Questionable_Medical_Bankruptcy_Figures_Fraser_Institute.php?item=530196">http://www.uslaw.com/library/Bankruptcy/Highly_Questionable_Medical_Bankruptcy_Figures_Fraser_Institute.php?item=530196</a>



The American numbers are skewed in 2006 thanks to BK legislation, but please explain why we bury Canada in BK filings?</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/blog/canadian-vs-us-bankruptcy/">Explanation</a>



<blockquote>From the perspective of the bankrupt the US citizen who goes into bankruptcy gets a better deal than the Canadian; mainly because the real estate exemptions in the US are generally very much higher.</blockquote>


<blockquote>This study found that locations with more lenient bankruptcy rules have higher levels of self-employed individuals, meaning that these regimes encourage enterprise. America?s liberal business bankruptcy laws are repeatedly cited as a factor in the US? prodigious advantage over Europe in entrepreneurship.</blockquote>
 
If healthcare is anything like the stimilus, I hope its 3 trillion (as opposed to one) so it'll work.



Also, your cite doesn't explain shit.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247265918]If healthcare is anything like the stimilus, I hope its 3 trillion (as opposed to one) so it'll work.



Also, your cite doesn't explain shit.</blockquote>


My children and grandchildren will be happy to pay for the 3 Trillion.



The site i offered doesn't explain anything?



You are making a wild, unsubstantiated assumption that the difference between US bankruptcy and Canadian bankruptcy rates is caused by medical expenses.



Then you say my article doesn't explain enough about the difference in bankruptcy rates.



<strong>Can you then prove your point. That the difference is based solely on medical bankruptcies?</strong>



<strong>I doubt you can or will. I will guess you will make a funny, or condescending comment or post a cute picture as a response instead.</strong>



<strong>OR you will blow this off and not answer the question because you can't</strong>



You threw out the chart show that the difference is medically driven.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247264441][quote author="stepping_up" date=1247261349]<blockquote></blockquote>


On the last WHO (from 2000) ranking Canada which everyone is touting as the way to go finished 30th on the rankings and the US finished 38th. If you read the articles that I posted earlier you would see that those rankings could possibly have skewed the US lower then they should have been. In addition to that some of the higher ranking countries skew their ranking by manipulating what and how the report their numbers. WHO stopped posting the rankings because they claim it is to difficult to compile the info.



<blockquote></blockquote>




Skewed it how much lower? Should we, the RICHEST country in the world, have been 33rd or 32nd? Healthcare and lack of coverage has only gotten worse since 2000. We are still the wealthiest country in the world so there is just no excuse for this.</blockquote>


If you could read this article....<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail">How stats were compiled</a>



<blockquote>In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA?s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth</blockquote>






That makes our system look better right there.



This is the other article I posted earlier. ?<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/13/newsarticledetail">Article</a>



<blockquote>What is not seen in the figure, however, is that it did this by cutting services to the extent that patient access to care was compromised. For example, block grants to Canadian provinces for health care were cut in 1986, 1989, and (cut IN HALF) in the second half of the 90?s.5 Provinces, in turn, cut funding to hospitals, cut physician fees, limited purchases of new technology, and removed coverage of some services from provincial insurance plans.5 As a result available hospital beds were reduced by 1/3 (6.6/1000 to 4.1/1000) between 1987 and 1995. 6 In Saskatchewan alone, over 50 hospitals were closed. In 2002 it was reported that the Canadian health care system was underfunded by over 5 billion dollars annually!7 Throughout this period, satisfaction with the Canadian health care system fell precipitously.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp101/bp101index.html">Cato Institute Study of WHO statistics and gathering methods</a>



Step your question is why I am hesitent to move to a Universal Health care plan as laid out today.



<blockquote>Skewed it how much lower? Should we, the RICHEST country in the world, have been 33rd or 32nd</blockquote>


To me the answer is no BUT we are trying to model this after the Canadian system which is 30th and again that study is <strong>9 years old</strong> we have no idea where we would rank in relation to Canada today. From what I have read the Canadian system has gotten worse.



How is copying the 30th going to get us to a <strong>significant</strong> improvement.



Listen my son had surgery 3 weeks ago I am out of pocket a big chunk of change. I would have liked it to be free but see how long a hernia surgery takes in Canada.



Here is a recent article about the wait in Canada for that surgery. <a href="http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6219c084-1ede-4da9-843a-208585259a4c">Hernia Surgery wait for babies.</a>



The recommended time is 14 days or less. In Vancouver the <strong>MEDIAN</strong> was 35 days.



How is that worth a TRILLION dollars</blockquote>


Couldn't you buy a supplemental policy in Canada that would give your son the surgery by a better doctor more quickly?
 
Suplemental inusurance covers what the Government doesn't.



Although Canadian Healthcare is universal it is not all inclusive.



<a href="http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_money/planning/insurance/article.jsp?content=20060330_090404_2980">Supplemental Insurance</a>



This would not speed up getting the surgery because that is covered by the government. My son would have had to wait.



By the way employers offer the suplemental insurance in Canada as a benefit. Similar to how employers here do. So Canadian business' DO incur costs associated with providing their employee's health insurance.
 
Medicare is SO bad that...



All my father's friends (mostly doctors and mostly multimillionaires) unflinchingly rely on it in their retirement. Most don't even carry supplemental ("scams", as they call it). The US *already* gets most of its care from public healthcare - since most medical expenses occur after 65 and almost all of that falls on Medicare. We just waste a lot more on inefficient private insurance for people under 62-65, spending as much as we do on Medicare for considerably less care.



It's time to stop crushing jobs by loading employers up with the backbreaking waste of private health insurance.
 
The post above is exactly correct.



I wonder if trrenter would have a different attitude if he owned a small corporation like I do.

Healthcare costs are totally insane. My son worked for me for about 5 years. When he left last year

my costs for his Blue Cross HMO were about $ 350.00 a month. For a 22 year old non smoking male.

Mine at 52 was almost $ 600.00 a month. We carried these costs during the good years without issue.

But in todays economy these costs are no longer sustainable for my company. These health care companies

have done nothing more than manipulate the relationship between doctors and patients for huge profits.

Driving up the costs while the patients and the doctors have had a negative benefit.



On a second note. Prescription drug costs. How can it continue that my medication that costs me $ 139.00 a month.

Cost about $ 45.00 in Rosarito Beach Mexico ? EXACT SAME PACKAGE. Made by Pfizer. And how is it that I watch

commercials for this very same drug on the TV about 20 - 30 times a week. Whats the purpose of advertising

prescription drugs on Television. Again. I have nothing about companies making profits. But OBSCENE profits

at the costs of people who dont have the ability to buy these products in a fair and open market place

thats not manipulated by PURE GREED should be against the law.
 
The cost of bringing new drugs to US market ranges from $250 million to $800+ million dollars (less subsidies), with no guarantee that it'd pass the final FDA approval. But once the approval is given, the drug companies aim to make billions of dollars in return. Essentially it's a gamble, and the market only rewards winners and not losers.



And the people who end up paying for it, is us -- Americans. We subsidize drug costs for rest of the world by paying more for the exact same medication. Canadians pay less and Mexicans pay a lot less.



Fortunately for us, we live close to the Mexican border for a drug run.
 
<blockquote>I wonder if trrenter would have a different attitude if he owned a small corporation like I do.</blockquote>


NO I would not have a different attitude.



Let me say it again for you <strong>I am not against universal health care.</strong>



In the last survey by WHO in 2000 France was first, Italy was second, San Marino was third. Canada was number 30 and USA was number 38. Being a logical person it is hard for me to believe that nothing has changed in the last 9 years. But I will suspend belief for a moment and say that it hasn't changed and the rankings remain the same. I will also suspend belief and assume that the rankings were absolutely correct. (I don't believe that they are for reasons such as some countries have very different definition of what a live birth is.)



From that starting point if it was your argument that we need to study France's and Italy's system for Universal Health care and then refine that I would probably agree.



But a logical argument for Universal Health Care isn't LOOK WHAT IT COST <strong>ME</strong>.



<blockquote>It?s time to stop crushing jobs by loading employers up with the backbreaking waste of private health insurance.</blockquote>


That argument could also work for, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, safe working conditions, child labor laws etc. anything that costs an employer more money that other countries don't have. Heck we could include emission reductions in that. China is a good example of a country that has no employee protection.



It is an unfair argument to say that it breaks the back of employers because employers are not Required to provide health insurance. I hired part time employees so I didn't have to pay health insurance when I ran my company. I also worked as a waiter through college and not one restaruant I worked at offered health insurance.



So if the argument is that anything is better then this and it is worth a Trillion dollars that is just a bad argument.



At least BLT and No Vas are being honest and saying that Universal Healthcare is important to them and they don't care if it cost the rest of us and our childeren a <strong>Trillion Plus dollars</strong> to get a substandard health system as long as they don't have to pay so much.



In other words the argument seems to be as long as it is good for me then who cares about everyone else.
 
[quote author="momopi" date=1247440390]The cost of bringing new drugs to US market ranges from $250 million to $800+ million dollars (less subsidies), with no guarantee that it'd pass the final FDA approval. But once the approval is given, the drug companies aim to make billions of dollars in return. Essentially it's a gamble, and the market only rewards winners and not losers.



And the people who end up paying for it, is us -- Americans. We subsidize drug costs for rest of the world by paying more for the exact same medication. Canadians pay less and Mexicans pay a lot less.



Fortunately for us, we live close to the Mexican border for a drug run.</blockquote>


To that point I know somebody and their company spent 7 years researching and developing a product that did not get FDA approval. Without the big money at the end of the process what company would do that?



BLT and everyone else that makes a run for the boarder knows that what they are getting in many cases is substandard.
 
Yes, R&D is a large expense, but advertising shouldn't be. You don't need to talk to your doctor about xyz drug because you saw a commercial for it. The drug company needs to talk to your doctor about the drug and then your doctor needs to talk to you about it if they think it's something that would help you. All this advertising is a bunch of garbage that shouldn't be allowed.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247440419]



At least BLT and No Vas are being honest and saying that Universal Healthcare is important to them and they don't care if it cost the rest of us and our childeren a <strong>Trillion Plus dollars</strong> to get a substandard health system as long as they don't have to pay so much.</blockquote>


Again, you are misstaing my position, but that isn't new or unusual for you. You also have trouble with facts (like your reference to COBRA earlier being retained when your employer goes busto).



<blockquote>Total health spending accounted for 10.1% of GDP in Canada in 2007, more than one percentage point

higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries. Health spending as a share of GDP is lower in

Canada than in the United States (which spent 16.0% of its GDP on health in 2007) and in a number of

European countries such as France (11.0%), Switzerland (10.8%), Germany (10.4%) and Belgium (10.2%).</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf</a>



I don't hear anyone complaining about the German or Swiss health care system, yet they spend a full 1/3 less per capita than we do and they have universal health care. The billion dollar phantom price tag assumes you can't get the costs under control in the system. The fact is we are the only country on the planet who doesn't have control of the price of health care.



I believe you can reduce costs by 1/3, and provide full coverage to 100% of the people in the US - IF somebody shows some sack and gets it right. If they handle it like the stimilus (too little, too late) it will fail epicly, but it won't because anything is an improvement over what we are doing right now.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1247441331]Yes, R&D is a large expense, but advertising shouldn't be. </blockquote>


Is R&D more in Mexico than here? Here's an alternate theory:



1. The Drug Mfgs. are gouging the US customer or

2. US customers are subsidizing users in other countries who pay a fraction of the price that we do.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247444520][quote author="stepping_up" date=1247441331]Yes, R&D is a large expense, but advertising shouldn't be. </blockquote>


Is R&D more in Mexico than here? Here's an alternate theory:



1. The Drug Mfgs. are gouging the US customer or

2. US customers are subsidizing users in other countries who pay a fraction of the price that we do.</blockquote>


Yes, they are gouging us. I remember in one of my ECON classes looking at drug companies and they had two Supply and Demand curves because US consumers of drugs could not import.





My point is that they are gouging us even more by making us pay for all their advertising. Prescription drugs should not be pimped to the public.
 
The Prescription Drug Companies spend hundreds of Millions to spread their propaganda.

Billy Tauzin and Pharma are doing one hell of a job. They pay him a couple million a year to lobby lawmakers.

Nothing like a Louisiana Lawmaker turned Lobbyist.



<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml</a>



"According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, congressmen are outnumbered two to one by lobbyists for an industry that spends roughly $100 million a year in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to protect its profits".



We are being RAPED by the drug companies. And part of that Propaganda is all this Excess Advertising we watch.



What makes the Drug Industry any different than the Electronics or Software industry ? Both have huge R&D budgets. But still compete in the global market place.



This is in todays Register. Once you hit 55. You will be paying over $ 1000.00 per month. Yee Ha.

<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-insurance-coverage-2488925-percent-carter">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-insurance-coverage-2488925-percent-carter</a>
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247444254][quote author="trrenter" date=1247440419]



At least BLT and No Vas are being honest and saying that Universal Healthcare is important to them and they don't care if it cost the rest of us and our childeren a <strong>Trillion Plus dollars</strong> to get a substandard health system as long as they don't have to pay so much.</blockquote>


Again, you are misstaing my position, but that isn't new or unusual for you. You also have trouble with facts (like your reference to COBRA earlier being retained when your employer goes busto).



<blockquote>Total health spending accounted for 10.1% of GDP in Canada in 2007, more than one percentage point

higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries. Health spending as a share of GDP is lower in

Canada than in the United States (which spent 16.0% of its GDP on health in 2007) and in a number of

European countries such as France (11.0%), Switzerland (10.8%), Germany (10.4%) and Belgium (10.2%).</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf</a>



I don't hear anyone complaining about the German or Swiss health care system, yet they spend a full 1/3 less per capita than we do and they have universal health care. The billion dollar phantom price tag assumes you can't get the costs under control in the system. The fact is we are the only country on the planet who doesn't have control of the price of health care.



I believe you can reduce costs by 1/3, and provide full coverage to 100% of the people in the US - IF somebody shows some sack and gets it right. If they handle it like the stimilus (too little, too late) it will fail epicly, but it won't because anything is an improvement over what we are doing right now.</blockquote>


The cobra statement wasn't a statement of fact, it was a statement where I assumed some things I shouldn't have. I had no problem accepting I was wrong when I learned the rest of the facts.



<strong>I didn't think you would answer the question about the bankruptcy in Canada vs the US. Misstated fact on your part. LOL.</strong>



You have complained numerous times the sytem stinks because your wife can't get coverage for a preexisting condition and thrown out bogus statistics and nonsense to prove your point.



Read my post I am not opposed to universal healthcare. I am opposed to people that want it and their logic is <strong>"anything is better then what we have"</strong> Like you.



Now if Obama was actually talking about implementing a plan like in Germany or Switzerland then yes I would be more willing to see what the whole plan is.



Read up on the Canadian System they have been making cuts since late 1999 and funding has shrunk in the 2000's and since the WHO statistics were last gathered in 2000 I don't think it is a good idea to cheat off of them.



I wouldn't pick the 30th best student to copy off of in school if I was 38th.



Germany is #25, Switzerland is #20 and France is #1.



So if I were going to cheat I would chose to cheat off of France.



No Vas you cannot say the cost of administering the plan shows the value of their health care system. If the doctors run the Health Care system like an HMO and stop people from seeing doctors it is cheaper and not better. Or actually you did say that you just can't prove that to be true.



So if someone had a Sack and this would have to be Obama then we could talk about the German system which would require eliminating for profit insurance companies and replacing them with not for profit insurance companies. HMMM will that happen NO.



Or we could talk about the French system which would lower Doctors earning potential, stop so many malpractice law suits, and medical school would be free.



I bet we could reduce the cost of health care by stopping all the stupid lawsuits. Malpractice insurance is one of the highest costs a Doctor has.



Maybe the drug companies could lower costs to by not having to deal with all the law suits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top