some thoughts on Socialized Health care

Discussion
23

couldn’t agree more.

[reply]killface, your wife , as a nurse, gets benefits. i don’t. what’s say you’re self employed?

This brings up a good point: Obama’s health care plan is pure crap. I actually think McCain’s is better (where he gives you a cheque for $5000 to find your own insurance). If you are self employed or are small business, under Obama’s plan, you are out of luck.

Obama’s is crap because it basically puts the responsibility on the business to pay for the health care for all the employees. If the company cannot afford it, or does not pay, the company has to pay a penalty. A general pool of money is then collected to provide mediocre health care for everyone. Now, what if you are unemployed or what if you are a CEO of a company and think “well, instead of paying for the health care for my employees, I think I will pay the penalty, which is cheaper” (actually someone at work brought up this point). So where’s the incentive for small business to pay for the health of the employees? It’s forcing them - but why is it business responsibility?[/reply]

25

People like this will be in the system and easy to spot. I’m pretty sure pharmacy Databases can be easily linked. So, if doctor #1 says NO then Doctor #2 will know that Doctor #1 has already said no, or Doctor #2 will know that Doctor #1 as already prescribed…

We have that up here. My uncle who is/was an abuser of prescription meds now has all his doctors linked so that he can’t go from one to the other and get 3 times the meds he actually needs. (since he actually does need some) Once someone has been identified, it’s easy to do.

26

In the movie Matrix, during the scene where Neo is talking to Agent Smith in the park where Neo was talking to the Oracle, there is a close-up on Agent Smith’s face. In his sunglasses you can see a bright white screen to reflect the light onto the faces of the actors. This isn’t visible in any non-reflected angles.

27

afra, afra, afra. have you lost your ever lovin’ mind?
mccain wants to give me 5k for a policy that costs me 12? and in addition, he wants employer based health benefits to be taxed --to the employee. so if i were to work at a company that actually paid for my health insurance, the employer then needs to estimate how much of his insurance premiums are doled out for my sorry ass and family, and then at the end of the tax cycle, this employer hands me like a 1099 form saying you just received 12, 000 dollars in benefits. wow. now, according to mccain, i have to add that figure to my income for the year. money i didn’t see, and don’t have.
people! this health insurance issue in the grand ole US is dire.
nobody’s entitled to a free ride. but for the simple notion of being in a country where currently people can’t afford to go see a doctor (ME) this is disgraceful.
goddamit i was gonna wait til tuesday, just to see the drama, but i may have to drag my ass out there early. long lines already.

aside from all this confusion about right to life this etc., some here need to get into the trenches and actually talk to women (who btw are the ONLY ones who get pregnant) and get a grip about the abortion issue. near and dear to my heart. yeah pelligro, i go on with my boring ass stories–you’ll live. my mom was ordered to have an abortion by her doctor before it was legal or she would’ve died.
women need the option.

“this is Special Ed, and I support this message”

28

Gotta say the current Republican trend of throwing a blanket amount of money to families and calling it a plan (a health care plan, a tax plan, etc) is totally absurd.

I’m talking out my ass here a bit, maybe McCain plans to give everyone 5k every year but my guess is that it is a one lump sum in order to get people assimilated to the “pay as you play” method of healthcare. $5k/yr would be a whole lot of $$$ and I can’t imagine that making a go of it.

We were transitioning to this a la carte style of healthcare at my last job and it pretty much rocks for young healthy people with no kids and it sucks hard for older people or those with children. I’m a very healthy guy and have few medical problems but having the system basically designed to reward people like me and not the people who need the health care is absurd. The whole “we’re giving you options” slogan of these sorts of systems is a bit of a ruse. I spent more time than I ever cared to looking at this style of healthcare as a part of my job’s relation to HR and my part on the Wellness Committee.

Please let me know if I’m not getting the McCain plan.

29

i’m fifty-one . and you’re not getting mccains plan.

30

killface, your wife , as a nurse, gets benefits. i don’t. what’s say you’re self employed?

I am self employed. I paid for both of our insurance while she was in nursing school. It was cheaper then b/c she was a student, though.

I’m not saying we don’t need to do something about insurance. It’s ridiculously expensive. I just think that completely socializing it is not a great idea. Competition makes things better, and the free market, if/when regulated properly, is the best solution to MOST economic situations, IMO. When I think about other free/social programs or services, the word “inefficient” immediately comes to mind. I worked one summer for the tax assessor’s office of Tulsa County, and couldn’t believe how inefficient, slow, and lazy the whole office was. Without competition, most things become mediocre. SOMETHING needs to be done, but I think a committee of officials from both parties should head up a plan for the most efficient solution possible.

31

[reply]Ok. Let’s start this again… OBVIOUSLY nothing is free, so I’m pretty sure it doesn’t need to be brought up for a bazillionth time that taxes pay for this.
MY argument is that THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM. If it is, then we have to call education, fire and Police (as well as Insurance) Socialist as well, but nobody is ready to do that… and nobody has really come up with a decent reason as to why…

The rest is snipped…

You are petulant aren’t you? You can’t even bother to reply in a reasonable manner without going on some ridiculous, tyranical rant and schoolyard name calling.

Guess that makes us the same

Agree with me or I’ll shout you down. If that isn’t a Thugacracy, I don’t know what is.

If you want to take it to the school yard, that’s what you did to me first, with your snide comments.
I don’t give a damn if you agree with me or not but I would expect a certain level of decency.

You’re the one who brought the subject up, not I. To post something to a message board and not expect someone to ever disagree with you is completely absurd. I also didn’t call you a fucking idiot personally.

see above about decency but now we are off the subject

You implied that anyone who didn’t agree with you is and I paraphrased. If you took it that I called you a fucking idiot personally, then you have my humble appologies as that is not what was intended.

Thank you. Perhaps I was too strong in calling people, in general, idiots. I was not singling anyone on the board out but your response to me seemed very ad hominem.

However, you should read your own post. I think it is you who could use a lesson in comprehension.

No, I’m not a grammar Nazi, you seem to be. The Declaration of Independence clearly says unalienable, not inalienable, though the drafts do say inalienable.

#1 I didn’t have it in front of me and #2 even if I had there is no guarantee that I would’ve copied it perfect…not that it should matter.

Nor did I imply the Declaration is not related to the Constitution. Certainly, one follows the other. I said the “rights” in the Declaration are granted by some nebulous entity called Creator, whom or whatever that may be. The rights of the citizens of the United States of America are clearly granted by the Constitution and is what all laws in the United States are based upon and held up against, not the Declaration. Again, please learn how to do more than simply read words but comprehend them as well.

Perhaps you need to articulate a bit better because you clearly implied that the Declaration has nothing to do with our rights. To address your points, that don’t really address mine, if the creator gave us the right to life, by not helping to heal those in need, we are stepping all over the will of the creator and denying sick people the rights given to all of us by of the creator.

What does O’Reilly have to do with anything? I don’t think I’ve ever watched that idiot’s show for more than about 5 minutes. I get the impression you do though.

You took some information WILDLY out of context on purpose with no real attempt to try and understand (or so it read) much the same way he does. Much like you, I can only get about 5-10 minutes of him.

Your statement is that we have socialism in this country and that certain things are free. Again, read your own post. I didn’t deny that we have certain socialist policies in the United States.

No, we have aspects of socialism in this country, and having a socialized health system would not turn our country into a socialist country. This is what I was driving at, but we most certainly ARE NOT a socialist country, nor will we be even if we socialize medicine.

I stated correctly that the things you said were “free”, in fact are not. I also stated that I think I pay an obscene amount of taxes. Maybe you like high taxes, I do not.

The fact that they are “free” was never in question… I guess this is the part your post that really irked me. I don’t think the most thick skulled members of this board think “Anything” is free. Of course taxes pay for this BUT we can redistribute collected to start the ball rolling on this. As far as your high taxes go, it’s that mentality that has driven our country into the ground. You could give crap one about any one else, it’s just “me me me me me me.”
I don’t like high taxes either and we should not have had to incur them, but the “GIMMIE” culture has prevailed over the last 8 years. So, in response to your complaint about high taxes, it sounds like you brought it on yourself! Had the surplus at the end of Clinton’s term not been recklessly spent, Bush could’ve lowered his taxes the way he did and still maintain the surplus.

I gave up Catholicism for Lent decades ago and never looked back

That’s pretty funny.

Haven’t set foot in a church other than to attend a wedding since. Again, what does that have to do with anything?

Was trying to understand from what angle you were coming.

My question to you was how do you square your views on so called free health care with that of abortion? These are related subjects, and when so called free health care, or perhaps socialized healthcare is more appropriate, begins certainly depends upon when you do. Is prenatal care part of the bargain, or does it wait until one is sprung forth upon the world? I was simply asking you a question, not promulgating my view point.

Your question did not come off as “can a women get an abortion?” Your question was “if everyone has a right to life, do we outlaw abortion?" That’s how it reads.
Now that you’ve stated it, I’m sure there are models of health care that we can copy. I would imagine that abortion would be covered to some extent.

Not that it’s any of your business, but I don’t advocate restricting one’s choice over what one wishes with their own body. I didn’t frame this as a religous cause, you did and it took it well out of context.
Your main argument was that the first “right” granted by the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. The right to life is generally used in this country by prolife/anti choice crowd. Just stating a fact.

Yeah, a fact that had nothing to do with my position. You brought up abortion remember?

You also tried to argue that the Declaration gave you a right to socialized medicine. I state correctly that the Declaration was aimed at the English monarchy of the day, had nothing to do with health care but freedom from interference by the Crown. Feel free to read the document yourself.

Thank you for the permission but I have already read the document, several times in fact. I didn’t “also tried to argue…” because this was my whole argument. I think the case could be made, using that those 3 rights FOR socialized medicine. You know, things evolve over time. If we are going to go on strict interpretation and historical context then the right to bear arms means that everyone owns a flint lock musket, because these automatic weapons were not around and therefore not covered by #2. Why does it always have to be hostile?
Late,
grmpysmrf

32

In the movie Matrix, during the scene where Neo is talking to Agent Smith in the park where Neo was talking to the Oracle, there is a close-up on Agent Smith’s face. In his sunglasses you can see a bright white screen to reflect the light onto the faces of the actors. This isn’t visible in any non-reflected angles.

Took the words right out of my… fingers.

33

[reply]killface, your wife , as a nurse, gets benefits. i don’t. what’s say you’re self employed?

I am self employed. I paid for both of our insurance while she was in nursing school. It was cheaper then b/c she was a student, though.

I’m not saying we don’t need to do something about insurance. It’s ridiculously expensive. I just think that completely socializing it is not a great idea. Competition makes things better, and the free market, if/when regulated properly, is the best solution to MOST economic situations, IMO. When I think about other free/social programs or services, the word “inefficient” immediately comes to mind. I worked one summer for the tax assessor’s office of Tulsa County, and couldn’t believe how inefficient, slow, and lazy the whole office was. Without competition, most things become mediocre. SOMETHING needs to be done, but I think a committee of officials from both parties should head up a plan for the most efficient solution possible.
[/reply]

No doubt, not an unreasonable request. They key to your whole post is “regulated properly” unregulated market ruins lives. I would be all for your plan.

aside from all this confusion about right to life this etc., some here need to get into the trenches and actually talk to women (who btw are the ONLY ones who get pregnant) and get a grip about the abortion issue. near and dear to my heart. yeah pelligro, i go on with my boring ass stories–you’ll live. my mom was ordered to have an abortion by her doctor before it was legal or she would’ve died.
women need the option.

It’s a woman’s issue. I say let the women vote on it. Men should have no part of it! I wouldn’t want a bunch of women voting on my balls
Late,
grmpysmrf

34

king smurf…uh, where the wimmins at?
right on. never quite heard the argument put so eloquently . keep dem balls intact.(and no voting machines or otherwiise squirming into the scenario)

35

I forgot to mention that the medical plan I have is one of those that Obama wants to offer to the rest of you who don’t have insurance through your employer. It’s $62.15/bi-weekly for a single person and $145.14/bi-weekly for a family.

37

For someone who makes decent bank, it’s not too bad. However, for someone just starting out at a lower pay grade, it really bites into their rent, utility, car, gasoline, beer, and tattoo money because they are paying the same $ premium that I am.

I worked eight years for an employer with around 10,000 employees. When I started working there, the medical insurance was $10/week and they covered everything with only a co-pay.

As time went on over the 8 years and people kept running to the doctor for stubbing their big toe and every sneeze, the cost went up to $13/week. Well, $3 doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but that $3 increase was accompanied by higher co-pays, Rx restructuring from 2 to 3 tier with increased co-pays, the-working-spouse-who-has-medical-insurance-offered-by-their-employer penalty, paying a sizable deductable, and having to pay for any labs out of pocket. IOW They decreased our benefits and increased our premium by each year eroding another benefit so we didn’t notice a significant change all at once. The bastards!

The reasoning was that at least we had some medical insurance instead of zero medical insurance and they had to do something to cut costs in order to keep offering some sort of medical insurance to their employees.

38

As time went on over the 8 years and people kept running to the doctor for stubbing their big toe and every sneeze, the cost went up to $13/week. Well, $3 doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but that $3 increase was accompanied by higher co-pays, Rx restructuring from 2 to 3 tier with increased co-pays, the-working-spouse-who-has-medical-insurance-offered-by-their-employer penalty, paying a sizable deductable, and having to pay for any labs out of pocket. IOW They decreased our benefits and increased our premium by each year eroding another benefit so we didn’t notice a significant change all at once. The bastards!

I would imagine that the size of your trust pool decreased or perhaps your pool was not that big to begin with-so one big catastrophic illness within your pool would cause the cost to go up and not so much for people constantly going to the doctor… Something to look into.
Late,
grmpysmrf

39

Possibly. The majority of the 10,000 employees are over age 40, many in their late 60’s and early 70’s. The aged work force certainly increases the likelihood for a catastrophic medical event to occur in the pool. However, most plans have yearly benefit caps (depending on what the issue is) to prevent one person from draining the fund. They usually also have a catastrophic out of pocket limit for the individual or family.

As with most failures within that company, I think it was a failure to plan for the future.

There was also a loop-hole in the medical insurance that allowed LASIK for the cost of a co-pay. Pretty much everyone who was eligible for the surgery went and had it while they had the opportunity. The company quickly put an end to that oversight.

My current employer pays $145.04 bi-weekly for my insurance. For some reason, it should make me happy that I’m paying only $62.15 bi-weekly instead of the full $5386.94/year, but it doesn’t. Note: McCain is giving out $5k - not enough to cover the entire cost of the middle of the road insurance plan, but most of it.

If you wait until Monday, the 2009 plan information will be posted; otherwise, this is what Obama is offering you all: http://www.opm.gov/insure/08/spmt/plansearch.aspx

40

10,000 people is an extremely small pool. The pool i belong to has over 2 million. the district is trying to change our trust to a pool of 250,000 which means our shit will go up disgustingly high. needless to say the union is pretty pissed off and fighting tooth and nail to not have that happen.
Late,
grmpysmrf

41

The company has 10,000 employees, but I would have to ask what the actual pool size is to know for certain. Cigna is a major provider and may have lumped them in to a pool with some other companies. As mentioned previously, the premium was extremely low-cost. I always wondered how they negotiated it.

I’ve also worked for a company of 120,000 employees. That insurance plan was almost identical in cost and benefits to the insurance plan that I have today.

42

Socialized health care? Fuck that noise. [cool]

43

the self employed have no choice but to buy their own insurance. and unless you make over 60k a year or more you’re not going to be able to afford premiums ranging from 750 a month to 1400 a month…

i’m all for equity in healthcare. that should be the american way. get rid of the socialism label. change the industry. it’s bleeding as we speak.

“I’m Special Ed. And I approve this message.”

Wow you sure are terrible at shopping if you really pay that much for insurance.

I agree that insurance companies are borderline criminal in how they handle claims but saying you can’t insure a family if your salary is less than $60,000 is not true at all.

And what is “Equity in healthcare” even supposed to mean? Does that mean doctors should work for free to treat people that can’t pay? Maybe everyone should do their job for free if the customer is in need and can’t pay? Maybe you have enough money to pay doctors to treat people who don’t have money to pay them? I don’t think anyone would say they think people should be denied healthcare but nobody ever gets on their soapbox and shouts about how they will personally donate all their own pay to ensure “equity in healthcare”.

44

dude i had two different insurance agents look into finding affordable (under a thousand dollars a month) and ALL the plans were terrible.yeah, there are plans out there for SELF EMPLOYED people and they have huge deductibles and copays and no emergency room etc. etc. that i call shitty insurance. what the fuck’s the point in paying that much money for nothing?
what insurance do you have? and is it through your employer? and what state do you live in?
makes all the difference in the world. all this bs about socialized this and that, can be pretty well summed up by pointing to the time honored traditions of Social Security, farm subsidies, the Federal Highway Trust Fund,Medicare, and the list goes on.
maybe i need to get a bank job. those idiots just got “socialized” relief now didn’t they. we taxpayers, ME INCLUDED, and our kids are going to get reamed.
you don’t think anyone should be denied healthcare. great. who is going to pay for that?
you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.