Health care

[87e30]

exactly. guess who is paying that 98k?

Out of curiousity, and I doubt that anyone actually knows the numbers on this, but:

Is it cheaper to pay for people as they need it. (IE this kid that fell off of a wagon)

Or is it cheaper to pay for everyone all of the time so that they are covered in case of something like this happening?

That is an interesting point kishg.

However... I'm still against the control that this bill hands to the government.

[kishg]

"The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

yeah but it does little to expand coverage, isn't that the entire point of this exercise?

[kishg]

As it stands right now you cant be denied treatment, based on your ability to pay. You will be treated and will be taken care of regardless!!!


I have a buddy in MI whos his neighbors step son fell off a wagon during home coming. The kids foot got caught in the wheel well and got drug along for 200 feet I guess. The 1st weekends bill was 98k and the kid was in the hospital for 3 1/2 weeks. He was not turned away for lack of ability to pay

exactly. guess who is paying that 98k?

[mrsleeve]

As it stands right now you cant be denied treatment, based on your ability to pay. You will be treated and will be taken care of regardless!!!


I have a buddy in MI whos his neighbors step son fell off a wagon during home coming. The kids foot got caught in the wheel well and got drug along for 200 feet I guess. The 1st weekends bill was 98k and the kid was in the hospital for 3 1/2 weeks. He was not turned away for lack of ability to pay

i'm not making any statement for or against. i'm merely saying that people with no insurance should not go around thinking that is a decision that affects them alone when in fact it affects society as a whole because as a society we've decided that we won't let people die when they cannot afford to pay their medical bills.

[markseven]

i'm in two minds about it.. on the one hand, i do believe that as the most advanced democracy in the world, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare and that the health care insurance industry needs to be regulated to ensure that as they won't do that out of their own accord. On the other, i am against increasing taxes and penalties to pay for it.

My feeling is that the timing is off on this. If the economy were stronger and we were out of the two ridiculous wars we're fighting, this could be done without higher taxes. those supposed cuts to medicare will never happen. we know that. as for higher taxes on high earners, I think the entire convoluted tax code needs to be revamped and made simpler, the current system doesn't work.

i'm not endorsing the republican view of lets just sit on our asses and do nothing but yell at the other side either.

"The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CBO-Prepublican-health-plan-would-reduce-premiums--69270747.html

Saw this on the Bimmerfest PolySci board.

[kishg]

i'm not making any statement for or against. i'm merely saying that people with no insurance should not go around thinking that is a decision that affects them alone when in fact it affects society as a whole because as a society we've decided that we won't let people die when they cannot afford to pay their medical bills.

[87e30]

if your willing to make the choice of death vs insurance then by all means but in reality what happens is that if you cannot afford it, the rest of us end up paying for it.

Please correct me where I'm wrong, but this is how I read your statement.

If you can't afford health care then the government (people paying taxes) ends up stepping in and paying for your medical costs so that you can get the procedure/drugs/help that you need.

Therefore it's better if we (the government) pay for everyone to recieve with health insurance so that later if someone needs the coverage the government will not have to step in later and cover for it?

So in the case of my mother, if something terrible were to actually happen now she's paying to be covered where as with the current system she may end up not being covered which would place the burden onto the government (people).

Am I understanding correctly?

[mrsleeve]

I have to say this made me laugh so hard beer came out my nose!!!!

fuck you hOlms! dammit for once i have to agree with you. the world is now going to end.

[kishg]

So I guess I'm saying she's going to need to increase her coverage to meet a gov't approved plan yet she's not going to get more out of it.

how do you know that? insurance is about risk management, if i knew for sure what was going to happen in the future i'd be on a bugatti veyron forum ;) if your willing to make the choice of death vs insurance then by all means but in reality what happens is that if you cannot afford it, the rest of us end up paying for it.

[87e30]

who do you think pays for those emergency visits?

She does, with the health coverage that she does have. I just have talked to her about this before and I know that her coverage is very minimal b/c she doesn't fully utilize it. The only time I can recall that she has ever been to the hospital is when she cut her finger off. (yes it was stupid, that's not important)

So I guess I'm saying she's going to need to increase her coverage to meet a gov't approved plan yet she's not going to get more out of it.

[KenC]

The focus needs to be put on disease prevention and finding cures for said diseases as opposed to treatment of symptoms.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year researching cures for diseases by some of our nation's brightest minds. Progress can be very, very slow, and we need to treat symptoms of uncurable diseases in the meantime.
There isn't one health care provider I know that doesn't overtly encourage their patients to lead a healthier lifestyle.

[der affe]

The focus needs to be put on disease prevention and finding cures for said diseases as opposed to treatment of symptoms.

fuck you hOlms! dammit for once i have to agree with you. the world is now going to end.

[kishg]

T

My mom uses a lot of more natural doctors if you will, no sort of mainstream hospital stuff. (except for emergencies of course)

who do you think pays for those emergency visits?

[87e30]

This will also hurt people who don't use conventional health care means.

My mom uses a lot of more natural doctors if you will, no sort of mainstream hospital stuff. (except for emergencies of course)

Now if I'm reading this correctly, she will be required to get a government approved plan which I'm going to assume is going to cost her a lot more than the bare bones plan she is using right now. And she won't even use what it is giving her. Plus she is a small business owner so there is no company that is going to be helping her out.

From where I'm sitting (granted I'm not even in the real world yet) I can't comprehend how this is going to benefit anyone except for those making so little that they can't afford a plan at this moment and will now get a gov't subsidized plant. I'm sure someone out there could point out some benefits to me though? (attempt at real discussion)

[LBJefferies]

How do you propose to universally improve care?

As a medical school applicant I'm interested in this.

The focus needs to be put on disease prevention and finding cures for said diseases as opposed to treatment of symptoms.