Socialized medicine is a done deal

[Pilgrim]

It's a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Granted, the insurance industry needs to be forced into certain reforms involving pre-existing conditions, being able to sell policies across state lines, and also significant tort reform that gets rid of frivilous lawsuits. But in spite of all their problems, the private insurance sector is certainly more efficient conducting this business then the govt. could ever hope to be. By its very nature, govt. can not do anything as effectively as the private sector. Just look at the bill itself - 2000 pages of bs created by hundreds of bureaucrats who are only concerned with their own agenda or self interest. We don't want these people to have a monopoly on the administration of our health insurance.

 

[LDB]

But they already reach into your pockets, and corrupt? You dont think private and public companies are corrupt? As well as being overloaded with lawyers? We already pay for the uninsured through higher preminiums. The unisured are reaching into your pockets so why not make them buy insurance?

Yes, they are in my pocket far too much already. This bill would just put them much farther into my pocket. Yes, companies are corrupt and have too many lawyers. That's why I said voluntary contributions through churches, the least corrupt organizations although I'm sure not totally corruption free. I'm not at all against not allowing people to buy cable tv, new cars, etc. until they prove they already bought health insurance.

 

[greg334]

We already pay for the uninsured through higher preminiums.

No we don't. We pay higher premiums because of the mandates and lack of competition. We pay higher premiums because people don't take care of themselves.

The higher cost of medical care is not all about insurance and never was. It is about a system that needs to be fixed by allowing some things to happen and people to take responsibility for their own health.

BCBS doesn't seem to refuse people with 'pre-existing' conditions and many other insurance companies also don't. The problem with that is choice should be the person's to fnid an insurance policy that fits their needs, which has only to do with the competition within the industry. The tax laws are the real prevention to allowing people more control.

The problem with insurance is that there is too much that should not be covered by basic policies. I am not talking about a weight lost program or an experimental treatment that can limit cancer's reach in the body but things like Tattoo removal or sex change operation.

The latter I used as an example and some people here think I am making it up to bash gays but not really. I know of a few cases where BCBS covered the sex change operation at a total cost of $455,000 - excluding follow treatment and hormone medication, that is extra. One case the man turned into a female and he scammed BCBS out of a lot of money (another serious issue for all of us) by claiming he was his "partner's spouse" after he had his final operation and went through the court to change his name. It took an coder to find out what was going on after she was hired to audit the doctors billing.

Tattoo removal is also something that is very expensive and depending on the state, is part of the mandated package. I think it is NY that has this listed as one of the services paid for, it cost an average of $5000, sometimes as high as $10,000 to have one removed with follow up visits.

To answer your question, I had no insurance for a while and I made it without any real problems but I would not ever want to have the government have a hand in anything to do with my health care.

Knowing what I know about the abuses behind the scene with insurance companies, hospitals and especially private practices, it would be 1000 times worst and we would end up with limited care across the board so those with public health care would not "feel" bad about their situation because they would drag the rest of the system down to that level.

Just the privacy issue alone has me very concern. If you guys don't understand why they want to push for standardized records and the talk of a medical record clearning house, go read 1984 or better yet A Brave New World.

The other thing is this, with this "health care reform" there is one group who is going to suffer the most in the next 10 years, the seniors. They will get their benefits cut and end up with a lot less then they ever imagined. The second group who will get screwed on all of this is the 18 to 25 years olds who will be forced to take a public option and then have to pay for all of this with more taxes and more fines.

 

[LDB]

Greg gave a good answer leaving out one thing. We pay a HIGHER premiums due to far too many lawyers, people serving on juries and awarding insanely ridiculously high amounts for medical malpractice that in fact was not malpractice and corrupt judges (who are lawyers) failing to throw out many many lawsuits and fine many many shister lawyers who should be sanctioned. Elimination of frivilous lawsuits and sensible limitations on jury awards would have a tremendous positive impact on healthcare costs. That won't happen as long as the elected damocrats are over 90% lawyers.

 

[greg334]

Actually Leo, malpractice insurance is a supply side issue, not a insurer issue. This raises the cost of all medical procedures simply because it increases the cost of doing business on the doctors/hospitals point of view. I don't think there have been a lot of malpractice suits filed against BCBS.

Now with that said, here is another thing to think about.

I do not under any circumstances to have a doctor be part of any health care (aka insurance) reform.

MOST doctors DO NOT HANDLE their own finances in their practice and DON'T know what the h*ll is going on in the insurance industry or what pateints may or may not face. A lot of this is left up to others who know more about what is going on in the practice than the doctor will even know. This does not mean that there are doctors who do their own billing but that is toooooo few and far between.

So when Obama and anyone else speaking to doctors (like congress) to find out how to reform health care, they are just making it into another BS feel good issue.

 

[layoutshooter]

What difference if I do pay for my OWN insurance. I have been for the vast majority of my adult life. Keep one thing in mind, despite what you might have been told, heard on the news, government employees have to pay between 40-60% of their own insurance. I even bought my own when I got laid off from the mill, my wife pregnate. It was MY responsibility. I lived up to it. Why does ANYONE want to do less? That is failure.

Why is it you are willing to except what is most likely either illegal or unconstitutional? You don't REALLY believe that it will cost you less than it does now do you? You don't REALLY believe that you access to health care will improve or get better?

Just remember YOUR health is YOUR business and ours is ours. NO ONE, NO GOVERNMENT has ANY right to use FORCE to make be buy what I might CHOOSE not to. NOTHING is worth giving up ANY freedom. Why are SO many willing to give up FREEDOM for lies?

 

[LDB]

Malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive due to so many ambulance chasing lawyers. That huge operating expense transfers to the patients in higher costs. One of my dad's good friends is a neurosurgeon. He retired many years ago when his malpractice insurance went up to $250k annually. He was excellent at what he did with no legitimate claims but a few frivilous look at the deep pockets claims.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is a SECOND side to the mal-pratice thing, it is called "practicing defensive medicine." That is when doctors perform unneeded tests for NO other reason than to cover their butts from lawyers and law suits. That accounts for a pretty good percentage of YOUR increased health care costs. I have heard ONE estimate of it adding as much as 10% to health care costs. Couple that with what some see as the 30% that uneeded government regulations can add. Getting government OUT of health care and GOOD, HONEST tort reform has the POTENTIAL to lower health care costs by as much as 40%. But NOT our goofballs in Washington, they need 2078 pages to rip us off further.

 

[LDB]

The last year before my dad's friend retired it cost him $1000 per day every day Monday through Friday for 50 weeks of the year. If he closed his office on Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year, and July 4th that would leave a grand total of six days for him to take vacation, be with his family, whatever, without making the daily cost more than $1000. That's just one of the many many expenses of operating a doctors office. The majority of that malpractice insurance money pays for frivilous lawsuits. That's a lot of money out of the patient's pocket to pay for criminals. Yes, criminals. The ones with law degrees filing the bogus lawsuits and the ones trying to cheat the doctors and insurance companies out of money.

 

[greg334]

But both of these issues are not about how one gets insurance which is the theme of the Obama administration "there are people dying because they are not allowed to have insurance due to their preexisting condition" This is what they are using to take control, not how much malpractice insurance costs.

I know doctors who would really like to pay $250k, they pay about $1.2m a year, one is an OB/GYN and another is a specialist in facial reconstruction - both are considered high risk by the insurance company because of the 'damage' they can do.

But nevertheless, the cost is passed on to the patient (hence the insurance company) as is most of the other costs.

Tort reform will take care of 60% of the issue with malpractice, the other 40% we will have to live with. As I mentioned before, one other factor involved with this and another reason that I don't want the doctors involved with is the reform on how we license doctors, there is no national license, everything is run by the states and even if the states just pull together and keep track of these doctors who jump from one state to another when they do something wrong, then it would reduce 10% of the problem we have with doctors.

 

[LDB]

I don't doubt that it's 7 figures now. It was two decades ago that Tom retired and it cost a quarter million a day. You are right this is a tangential topic. The point of it is that if this ridiculously inflated cost was removed it would make health care far more affordable. That would allow lower costs for medical insurance and many of the uninsured could then afford to buy the coverage they can't afford now.

Along with that, if they want to do something sensible, require valid health insurance coverage to be allowed to obtain cable tv or buy a new car.

 

[Pilgrim]

...BCBS doesn't seem to refuse people with 'pre-existing' conditions and many other insurance companies also don't. The problem with that is choice should be the person's to fnid an insurance policy that fits their needs, which has only to do with the competition within the industry. The tax laws are the real prevention to allowing people more control...

I'll go along with everything in this post except the above paragraph.This assertion of yours is dead wrong. BCBS and all the other insurance companies will refuse to insure anyone on something like blood pressure or cholesterol medication unless they're coming off recent coverage by a group policy - 64 days I believe that's allowed to sign up for the COBRA coverage or find another policy. They will also turn people down they determine to be overweight, diabetic, arthritic, etc. The only way people with these conditions can find health insurance it to get a job with a company that offers group coverage. Even in that case, there is a waiting period before coverage applies to any ailment that determined to be relative to a pre-existing condition, e.g. high blood pressure.

There should be different catagories of pre-existing conditions. For instance, somebody that's HIV positive or has been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer should be considered high risk. However, somebody else that takes Lipitor for their slightly elevated cholesterol levels and is otherwise healthy should be an entirely different classification. As it stands now very few insurance companies differentiate between degress of pre-existing conditions.

 

[aristotle]

I submit 10-15% of the public will not purchase health insurance at any price because they are irresponsible. Oh, they gladly take it if it's free, but don't expect them to actually spend their own money to buy something intangible, like insurance. These slackers choose instead to spend their cash for booze, drugs, cigarettes, lottery tickets, cable TV, video games... Many of these clowns are 40+ years old, chronically sick and shift the cost of their healthcare onto those of us currently carrying insurance.

Largely, for the sake of the slackers, the Obama administration is seizing this moment to force government takeover of US healthcare. Since slackers are the most natural constituency of the Democrat Party, one can conclude the Obama administration is just looking after its own. In reality, this takeover is a political power grab of massive proportions. It is a power grab masquerading as compassion.

 

[greg334]

Pilgrim,
Sorry dude but I have those things you mentioned, high blood pressure, I take a statin (not lipitor, never lipitor), sleep apnea, overwieght (fat!), knee is messed up, and so on and I didn't have any health insurance for three years, even when my wife did, I could have been put on her horrible plan but didn't.

When she moved to her new job, she took BCBS traditional and was told that I wouldn't be covered but I was within 30 days and more so on the preventive side of things where they are paying for things like dietition consulting and so on.

See I think it is not the preexisting condition that is the problem, it is the lack of competition and the idea that the employer needs to deal with a risk group, meaning that each employer is forced to deal with "individualy negotiation group rates based on a number of factors" because of the problem that we can't cross state lines to buy insurance, hence no real competition. If buying acorss state lines is allowed with the shifting of responsiblity onto the employee to find and negotiate their own insurance then have the employer pay their share, it would actually be better for most who say they can't find insurance because of a preexisting condition.

 

[layoutshooter]

I had pre-exsisting, High bp, gout all kinds of stuff. I got a BCBS high deductable HSA plan. We really like it. There is almost always a way to get what you want done, done.

 

[Poorboy]

I Don't Care what they Pass because I am NOT Going to Pay for Health Care when I Already Have it!! If Nancy and the Rest of the Scum Which Includes The Idiot in the Whitehouse Want to Pay for Over 11 Million Illegal Invaders and The Rest of the People who Are Not Covered then THEY Can Pay for it!! I Will NOT!!

 

[RLENT]

I'm not at all against not allowing people to buy cable tv, new cars, etc. until they prove they already bought health insurance.

Wow ....... real fan of freedom are you ?

Against nanny government right ?

You would limit the freedom of your fellow citizens to spend their own money in whatever way they see fit - and compel them to purchase a product, possibly against their will .....

Methinks that you and Obama (and others of his ilk) are but two different sides of the same coin .....

Well ..... mebbe not so different .....

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't think that LDB was saying that people CANNOT spend their money on Cable, cell phones, tatoo's etc. What I think he meant, and I DO agree with it, is that WHY should those of us who CHOSE to act in a responsible manner and see to our own health care, should not then have to pay for those who, by their OWN choice purchase frills before NEEDS!!

We all MUST accept FULL responsibility for our own lives. That is one of the biggest differences between a child and an adult. When we are children we tend to be selfish. Everything is ME ME ME.We demand EVERYTHING to live. We are not yet able to support ourselves. As we mature we SHOULD grow out of that. We learn to make use of our talents. We learn to handle ONE thing and then the next as we grow. By the time we are ADULTS and take on ADULT responsibility we MUST handle that responsibility. It is our DUTY to do so. To support our family, live within the confines of the Constitution.

When large numbers of people CHOSE not to accept their OWN responsiblity, society begins to break down. People start to whine, they have become victims. They are OWED things. Like health care. Crime rates grow because people feel that they are entitled to everything, and then when they can't afford to buy it LEGALLY, they STEAL it.

Victims have NO pride. NO sense of accomplishment. They then turn to drugs or booze to find a feeling that they cannot grasp. To fill that empty spot that SHOULD be filled by that sense of accomplishment and Self-Confidence.

Nothing is more destructive to the human spirit than having things done FOR them. We do our children a great disservice when we pay for college, buy them a house or a car. The MORE they do for THEMSELVES. The more THEY accomplish on THEIR own the better their lives will be.

I may die broke, with nothing, scraping for everything. I may not. It really does NOT matter. What DOES matter is that I lived up to my responsibilities. I raised my kids to adulthood and they are now on their own. I insure that my wife has a roof over her head, food on the table, clothes on her back and HEALTH CARE I have lived a RESPONSIBLE life. Why would ANYONE EVER want to strive for less?

Public assistance should ONLY be for REAL emergencies. NOT an ENTITLEMENT. How can a MAN or a WOMAN live off the public tat and look in a mirror and feel good about themselves.

Beyond a REAL emergency, living off the hard work of OTHERS who LIVE RIGHT is nothing more than failing at your life. How sad.

There is almost ALWAYS another way to skin a cat. LOOK FOR IT. WIN!! Don't become a victim, whine and BEG!! That is what you are doing when you demand to be taken care of, BEGGING. There is LITTLE difference between the idea that you are OWED heath care and a bum on the street.

How is that for not RANTING??

 

[letzrockexpress]

I don't think that LDB was saying that people CANNOT spend their money on Cable, cell phones, tatoo's etc. What I think he meant, and I DO agree with it, is that WHY should those of us who CHOSE to act in a responsible manner and see to our own health care, should not then have to pay for those who, by their OWN choice purchase frills before NEEDS!!

We all MUST accept FULL responsibility for our own lives. That is one of the biggest differences between a child and an adult. When we are children we tend to be selfish. Everything is ME ME ME.We demand EVERYTHING to live. We are not yet able to support ourselves. As we mature we SHOULD grow out of that. We learn to make use of our talents. We learn to handle ONE thing and then the next as we grow. By the time we are ADULTS and take on ADULT responsibility we MUST handle that responsibility. It is our DUTY to do so. To support our family, live within the confines of the Constitution.

When large numbers of people CHOSE not to accept their OWN responsiblity, society begins to break down. People start to whine, they have become victims. They are OWED things. Like health care. Crime rates grow because people feel that they are entitled to everything, and then when they can't afford to buy it LEGALLY, they STEAL it.

Victims have NO pride. NO sense of accomplishment. They then turn to drugs or booze to find a feeling that they cannot grasp. To fill that empty spot that SHOULD be filled by that sense of accomplishment and Self-Confidence.

Nothing is more destructive to the human spirit than having things done FOR them. We do our children a great disservice when we pay for college, buy them a house or a car. The MORE they do for THEMSELVES. The more THEY accomplish on THEIR own the better their lives will be.

I may die broke, with nothing, scraping for everything. I may not. It really does NOT matter. What DOES matter is that I lived up to my responsibilities. I raised my kids to adulthood and they are now on their own. I insure that my wife has a roof over her head, food on the table, clothes on her back and HEALTH CARE I have lived a RESPONSIBLE life. Why would ANYONE EVER want to strive for less?

Public assistance should ONLY be for REAL emergencies. NOT an ENTITLEMENT. How can a MAN or a WOMAN live off the public tat and look in a mirror and feel good about themselves.

Beyond a REAL emergency, living off the hard work of OTHERS who LIVE RIGHT is nothing more than failing at your life. How sad.

There is almost ALWAYS another way to skin a cat. LOOK FOR IT. WIN!! Don't become a victim, whine and BEG!! That is what you are doing when you demand to be taken care of, BEGGING. There is LITTLE difference between the idea that you are OWED heath care and a bum on the street.

How is that for not RANTING??

Depending on what your definition of a rant is, that may have been one. Nonetheless you speak the truth. By my definiton that was indeed a rant. A GOOD rant....

 

[layoutshooter]

Thank you sir. I thought of it as PROFOUND writing, not ranting, but I am honored that you see the value of it.