Health Insurance

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Brother Esaias, with all do respects, you say I don't get out much, and then post to me a link to an internet map.

Do you have any loved ones who have died from a treatable condition because they didn't have insurance and couldn't see a specialist in time? Or because they couldn't afford an expensive procedure, or because they couldn't afford some expensive prescription medication? On July 7th of 2007 my mother died from a condition that, had she been able to see a specialist, she most likely would have not perished. She has a name. Her name was, Joyce. I called her, "mom", until the day she died.

So, I really don't have to travel very far from home to tell you the reality of what I'm talking about. You ever scramble making phone calls trying to raise money to help someone you love before they die? I have. And, I don't have to post any internet maps, links, or statistics to tell you that the problems with our system are tragic. In 2007, my mother was one of the estimated 45,000 people who died from treatable conditions... simply because they didn't have insurance.

Here she is with me on her lap.

I love you mom.

A - with all due respect I believe your support for socialized medicine is very much wrapped up in your personal tragedy.
But that tragedy does not give you the right to force me to give up part of my freedom or my income.
What if someone who had lost their mother due to an illness that could have been detected by DNA testing started campaigning for babies to have their DNA tested when they were born?
Would you support that?

[aegsm76]

Also, the fact is that almost all of these countries with their socialized healthcare have been able to do so because they relied on the good ol'USA to make sure the bad guys in the world behaved.
Which is why POTUS is adamant that they need to up their defense spending.

[berkeley]

$15 credit with my referral


www.blinkhealth.com/i/GR8FVQ

[Wilsonwas]

Well, I do not have cancer. This at least is good- await bill....

[Aquila]

aegsm…

First, let's get our definition of terms all straightened out so we're on the same page. A single payer system isn't "socialized medicine". Socialized medicine is when the government runs all hospitals and doctors are essentially government employees. Single payer is simply universal Medicare. It's insurance. The hospitals, doctors, specialists, drug companies, etc., under a single payer system are still private (the VA being an exception). So, when people call a "single payer" plan "socialized medicine", they are lying to us, using terminologies that are incorrect to manipulate us and sway opinion. Single payer is not socialized medicine. It's simply Medicare for all.

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - with all due respect I believe your support for socialized medicine is very much wrapped up in your personal tragedy.

I will admit that having experienced personal tragedy at the hands of this system has made me consider the options out there as it relates to our healthcare system. And my discoveries have shaped my politics on this. What I find interesting though is the cognitive dissonance from the right on this. If one in 1,000 thousand Canadians complain that they had what they feel is an unacceptable wait time for a procedure, the right will capitalize on that personal experience as though it is thousands upon thousands of Canadians languishing in the snow for a procedure, repeat the story over and over, and argue that Canada's system is failing Canadians. However, when thousands of American families raise their voices over actual "DEATHS" as a result of not having access to the care they need because they lack insurance... and the right tells them, "Oh, your position is just wrapped up in personal tragedy." That doesn't make sense to me.

Think about it. The right is arguing that 1 complaint of excessive wait times per every 1,000 Canadians justifies calling their system failed. But 45,000 Americans die due to lack of insurance, and these families are just dismissed on account of having experienced "personal tragedy". The political game is crystal clear. Or... to those on the right... 45,000 Americans dying a year is acceptable compared to the personal tragedy of a single Canadian waiting on a procedure for a non-life threatening condition. lol

But that tragedy does not give you the right to force me to give up part of my freedom or my income.

Let me help share three angles of looking at this and their implications from my perspective...

- If you have insurance... your insurance rates are as high as they are because you're already being forced to pay for the uninsured. You're also paying an extra 30% in administrative costs to help line the pockets of the insurance companies. So, it's a mute point. If you really believed this, you'd be outraged and demanding that everyone be forced to pay their fair share.

- If you don't have insurance, and you have outstanding medical bills... I hate to tell you this... and I mean no offense... but you're a part of the problem. Because your outstanding medical bills are a huge factor in why healthcare costs are so high, and why our insurance is so high. And to that I ask... why do you feel entitled to make us pay higher rates so you can argue, "does not give you the right to force me to give up part of my freedom or my income"? You're the free loader. So, you have a choice. Get insurance... or just don't go to the ER or anything if you get sick or injured. And, if need be, please politely die. Because you shouldn't have the right to force me to pay more of my income in higher premiums just because you don't have insurance. There are no free rides.

- If you don't have insurance, and you do not ever seek care and will never seek care... at least you're consistent in your personal decisions. However, the system is still open to you, should you decide to go to the ER, and who is paying for that? You? Nope. We are. Again, what gives you the right to refuse paying for a service that is open to your free use, even if you decide (a personal choice) not to use it? The only way to make this a fair game would be to put you in a data base of individuals who should be denied care should you show up at an ER because of sickness or injury such as a traffic accident.

As you can see... your position is one of the big reasons why we're all paying out the nose. If you don't want free rides or even free access... shouldn't you be made to pay into the system? Or... are you secretly enjoying your free ride that is causing the rest of us to pay more?

What if someone who had lost their mother due to an illness that could have been detected by DNA testing started campaigning for babies to have their DNA tested when they were born?
Would you support that?

No. However, I believe voluntary DNA testing for the sake of early detection should be covered under a single payer plan. Why? First, it will allow for efforts to catch and treat any hereditary condition early, which will save everyone a lot of money. I'd advocate a nice tax break for those who choose to voluntarily undergo DNA testing for the early detection of one's predisposition towards cancer, MS, or other debilitating diseases.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Also, the fact is that almost all of these countries with their socialized healthcare have been able to do so because they relied on the good ol'USA to make sure the bad guys in the world behaved.
Which is why POTUS is adamant that they need to up their defense spending.

There might be some truth to that. Each nation's case is different. But in the case of France, their system was created as they crawled out of the rubble from WWII. There just wasn't an infrastructure, or the money, to render or pay for medical services. They had to work together as a people to ensure that all were able to receive care as they rebuilt their nation.

Did you know...???

Did you know that after the United States invaded Iraq, and toppled Saddam's government, we helped not only rebuild Iraq's civil infrastructure, but we also helped fund their single payer health insurance system? Yep, every Iraqi has guaranteed access to the healthcare they need. Funded by... you and me. If you have any loved ones struggling to pay for care or medications because they don't have insurance, this should outrage you. Why is the health and care of Iraqis more important to Congress than the health of our fellow Americans?

You get my point. I digress.

[Aquila]

I mean no offense to anyone here with no insurance and outstanding medical bills. Because I know how high those bills are and why so many are slow pays or simply can't pay. But the painful truth is... you, and others in your circumstance, who are slow pays or no pays... are fueling the rise in everyone else's healthcare and health insurance costs. Because the cost of that loss is being passed down to us all by providers who are still awaiting your payments for services rendered. And your bills are so high... because of those uninsured individuals who came before you and have yet to pay their medical bills.

The biggest factor in the rise of healthcare costs are the uninsured who are slow pay or no pay regarding their medical bills. Because the loss is being passed down to everyone else.

We're already paying for everyone... and with nearly 30% being processing fees to line the pockets of the insurance companies... we're paying for the uninsured in the most expensive manner possible. And the industry is going to the bank with record profits. It is simply "sickness profiteering".

[Aquila]

If any of you sincerely don't believe in being made to pay for the healthcare of others who are paying little to virtually nothing towards their care... how can you not support making everyone pay into the system??? And, if you accepted that, how could you not support a plan that gives us the power to not only cut the 30% administrative costs off the top, but also gives us the power to negotiate prices (single payer) to ensure that we're not all getting gouged???

[Aquila]

At the end of the day, it is the conservative who is essentially saying:

Hey, bill us all for the uninsured by passing that loss down to us. Oh, and tack on that extra 30% in administration costs, I'll pay that too! And hey, we don't mind the steady increases as more and more uninsured seek services!

You'd think a conservative would support making people pay something towards their own access to healthcare through mandates or taxation.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There might be some truth to that. Each nation's case is different. But in the case of France, their system was created as they crawled out of the rubble from WWII. There just wasn't an infrastructure, or the money, to render or pay for medical services. They had to work together as a people to ensure that all were able to receive care as they rebuilt their nation.

Did you know...???

Did you know that after the United States invaded Iraq, and toppled Saddam's government, we helped not only rebuild Iraq's civil infrastructure, but we also helped fund their single payer health insurance system? Yep, every Iraqi has guaranteed access to the healthcare they need. Funded by... you and me. If you have any loved ones struggling to pay for care or medications because they don't have insurance, this should outrage you. Why is the health and care of Iraqis more important to Congress than the health of our fellow Americans?

You get my point. I digress.

A - do some more research on your Iraq story. It is in their constitution, but is no where close to reality.
Sort of like the liberal story that Cuba is a medical paradise.