By law I have to have auto insurance, so not really applicable.

I dont think your auto/bike insurance covers medical expenses unless you are paying for that and then to what limit.

Oh yes it does. When I had my accident my car insurance paid up to twenty thousand dollars of my medical.
Unfortunately it broke my neck and both arms so I had a quarter million dollar bill.

And like baddog said...I paid it in payments over a few years.

I do have medical insurance now. But I sure am glad I didn't waste my money on it until 2002. I was 41 years old before I started paying for my health insurance. That means they did NOT get my money from 18 to 41 years of age.

I guess now a young adult will have no choice but to pay for insurance. Just like they forced us all to buy car insurance...and then turned around and hooked up the DMV with the insurance companies so they could raise your rates everytime you get a speeding ticket. Boy, there are a LOT of rich insurance company lobbyists and a lot of politicians federal, state, county, and city that make a lot of money off people with that whole scam.

Did you know that you can legally self insure yourself on car insurance? Not many can afford it, but you can actually put a hundred grand or so in an escrow account and insure yourself and tell the insurance companies to go suck your dick.

Found out that little tidbit a few years ago from one of my brothers who is in the car business. Never knew about it because the govt. and the insurance companies do not want you to know about it. They enjoy taking your money too much.

There are many things wrong with the health care system besides insurance. I remember being billed $27 for a Tylenol tablet once. Many many things wrong.

If you force people by law to have insurance then wouldn't you also have to force insurance companies to insure "high risk" people, those that insurance companies would normally decline? Wouldn't that in theory raise rates for everyone?

What happens when someone is not able to afford the mandatory health insurance? How would that be enforced? You would make people pay fines if they don't buy insurance, put them in jail, etc?

Auto insurance covers that in the US, even if you're the one at fault?

Well, alright then:

You slip in the bathroom and hit your head. Or you fall of a ladder. Or you suffer a stroke while walking down the street. Etc.

Since there are many possible reasons for requiring medical help which do not involve vehicles, the point still stands.

No deregulation and out right greed have led to the current situation. But of course what would a Republican do if they couldn't blame everything on the evil socialist liberals.

:helpme

No idea, it's a difficult problem to solve insurance is a tricky thing -- the insurance companies only really want to insure healthy people and soak them.

Another problem is the one highlighted by sudden serious accidents and/or illnesses hospitals can't refuse care -- so they provide services to uninsured or under-insured and then everyone else with insurance pays those bills in increased costs.

The problem is that medical costs go up at a much higher rate than wages. Unlike other things, medical care gets more and more expensive, not less. If you look at the rate of increase, nobody will be able to afford it in 20 years. THIS is the reason something needs to be done.

And yes, the opposition to health care reform is starting to float those new numbers that make the 46 million uninsured look like an inflated number and claim it is really closer to 8. It's simply not true.

My brother was starting a new business and had a pregnant wife. They were both 35 and they were paying $880 a month for coverage. He could afford it, but honestly, not many can. 40 million are in poverty. Do you think a single mother who makes $24K a year can afford health insurance? Don't forget, the poverty line is a family of 4 on less than $21k a year.

Something to think about. Employee heath care is how the man keeps you down. Many people would love to quit their jobs and start a business, a business that could fuel economic growth, but they can't because they have a young family and simply can't risk losing their insurance. This is a VERY common scenario.

Not to mention, if there was a federal health care system, the American auto industry would probably not be bankrupt right now. It's the legacy health costs that killed GM.

Health care reform is good business. It helps existing companies and gives people the freedom to create new businesses without having to worry about their own health care or that of their employees.

You don't have auto insurance I presume.

And IF I hit the lottery, and IF Obama doesn't fuck up this county more, and IF "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?

I don't take insurance on black jack either.

Yes, it would.

No, it wouldn't. In fact, it would be likely to lower rates for everyone.

You see, in many cases preventive medicine is both far more effective and far cheaper than emergency care. If "high risk" people don't have insurance, they are likely to avoid seeking medical care until they have no other option. At that point, chances are that treatment will be far more costly and surpass their means, meaning that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.

Keep in mind that most people who are considered to be uninsurable end up needing medical care at one point or another, and in many cases, they won't be able to afford the treatment but will be given treatment anyway.

Aside from that, the fact that people will be insured throughout their lives means that many young, healthy people will be paying into the system as well. And while some might consider that unfair, keep in mind that they're also paying for any future treatment they might need.

The end result of universal coverage is that those who are already insured will end up paying considerably less than they do now.

There are several possibilities. The best, in my view, is to simply enroll those who refuse to get their own insurance plan into a state-wide or nation-wide basic plan, for which they'll receive invoices. That would take care of many of the people who don't get insurance simply because they're lazy. Those who would fail to pay would end up building up debts and having their assets repossessed - and, in the end, possibly seeing jailtime.

Now, some people will argue that there are people who "can't pay for health insurance". However, as it stands now, when those people need medical help the taxpayer ends up paying for them - which means there's already an unofficial form of government health care, just a really badly implemented one.

One thing few Americans seem to realize is that their government spends just as much money on health care per capita as other western countries which do have universal coverage. The real difference is that only in America, individuals and corporations pay the same amount on top of that as well.

Take a look at this graph (taken from The Economist):

http://i31.tinypic.com/2yy8ubn.gif

The American government actually spends more on health care than the countries with "socialized medicine" do.

And despite what many Americans believe, health care in the US isn't any better than in those countries. Just take a look at things like infant mortality rate, life expectancy, or premature death rate - the US ranks among the worst of all western countries for all of them.

Your comments are usually fairly intelligent, but do you not see your contradiction?

No surprise considering how much bigger the US is compared to them.

Libertine
Stop wasting your time and talents with people who have already decided one way or the other. I'm off to go make money.

The problem isn't that we all need to be forced to have insurance.

The problem it we are being overcharged by the medical industry and the prices are being set in conjunction with the insurance companies and kept that way by payoffs to our government's politicians.

It's a money game. Has nothing to do with healing the sick.

Only in this case, the numerous "ifs" combine to form a big fucking "when".

Spending your entire life without needing costly medical attention and dying quickly at the end of it, is in fact close to winning the lottery. In all likelihood, you won't be a lottery winner.

Average lifetime health care expenditures are about $300k right now. On an individual basis, they aren't distributed equally across the years. Rather, there are specific incidents, occurring more frequently as one gets older, which form a large part of the total. Most people do not have the spare cash to pay for them as they occur - especially because those incidents tend to interfere with work.

The idea of insurance is not that you're placing a bet, but that you start a payment plan for something incredibly expensive that you'll most likely end up buying at some random point in your life.

What you are doing is not refusing to bet against yourself. It's transferring your own risks to society as a whole. If you die of cancer and rack up a few million in medical bills along the way, the taxpayer will be picking up the tab.

What kind of cancer costs millions?

Just an FYI: If I had cancer, I sure the fuck would not waste millions on something that was going to kill me anyway.

There is no contradiction. Costs wouldn't be higher, and while they might stay the same, most likely they will actually be lower.

You didn't notice that the graph in question shows per capita figures?

The absolute number for the US is higher of course, but also the per capita number (which was in the graph I posted), as well as the percentage of GDP. The first is related size, the other two aren't.

and you can prove this how?

Proof... that your insurance costs would go down because of social gov insurance?

Very easy to prove, so just checking...

Again I will say...that is because the medical industy OVERCHARGES us here in the U.S.

Right down to the drugs they prescribe. That's why you can buy anything the doctor prescribes you for half the price in Mexico. And for that matter...you can buy most of the medications across the counter because our govt. here in the U.S. works hand in hand with the insurance companies and medical industry to make damn sure that we all have to go see the doctor and pay an outrageous bill for the visit for the luxury of paying an overinflated price for medications.

And no, I'm not talking about "serious" medications. I'm talking stupid shit like propecia to grow your hair. You have to pay to see a doctor for that? And then pay a fortune for it? Same for Cialis and a hundred other little things like that. Fuck that, that's why millions and millions of people buy all their medications WITHOUT a doctors prescription online.

And THAT is probably one of the reasons that the govt. is hellbent on "fixing" health care. The insurance and medical community wants to stop losing that money.

I'll repeat...this is all about money, no matter which way it goes. If we have national health care there will be a lot of people getting very rich. And if we don't have it, there will be a lot of people getting very rich. And the American people foot the bill for these assholes either way.

Many kinds, actually. Especially the ones where it's not certain if you'll die. You know, the ones where you will get lots and lots of expensive treatment because there's a good chance of survival.

Even if you get an easily treatable form of cancer with a very high survival rate, the minimum it'll end up costing is probably $100k+.

On the other hand, if you get something that only has a moderate survival rate, and you spend a few years getting treatment, maybe going into remission once or twice after which the cancer comes back again, several millions spent in treatment really isn't that outlandish.

Keep in mind that for something like leukemia, an allogeneic bone marrow transplant alone will set you back a cool $250k.

Well, I don't know... by pointing out Western Europe? Maybe Canada as well? Or Japan?

So, you are just guessing. Thank you for at least admitting that.

It is outlandish. I am 56 years old. There is no ongoing cancer treatment that I would bother with since the treatments suck as bad as the disease. I am not going to spend my last years in a hospital bed, no way, no how.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for most procedures, the costs in the US are only slightly higher than those in Western Europe. There are some big exceptions, of course.

And keep in mind that medical specialists actually earn more in the Netherlands than in the US, for example.

I can't say I'm completely unbiased here, but:

Yes you should pay to see a doctor for things like that.

Aside from possible side effects, interaction with other medication and unwanted effects on existing conditions, something like erectile dysfunction can also be a sign of heart disease. So if you decide not to visit your GP and just order Cialis online, you could be ignoring the early warning signs of a heart attack that will kill you 5 years from now.

Yep, there will be people getting rich either way. The big difference is that UHC (implemented well) will end up saving the taxpayer money, while at the same time saving lives.

That's what you're saying now.

Few people say the same when they're faced with the choice between either certain death or a good chance of survival.

Yeah, how many expensive cancers out there have a good chance of survival? You think a bone marrow transplant offers a good chance of survival?

Leukemia has a 50%+ 5 year survival rate, and that's the most expensive type of cancer to treat.

These days, survival rates for most types of cancer are quite high as long as they are detected early on. Of course, you're still screwed if you get something like lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, etc.

The way it's going now, both treatment costs and survival rates will continue to grow sharply over the next few decades.

It's the American way.

Another crass post from someone with blinkers on.

I have cancer of the tongue and the Czech National Health service is curing it. They used an experimental mixture of drugs, without which I would of died. Cost to me over my monthly tax contributions $0.00. Would a US Health Insurance paid for experimental drugs or used that as an excuse not to pay?

Are Americans paying less for their health care than Europeans? Not from what I see, the money paid to insurance companies and for drugs is far more than we pay in the EU. There will always be waste in a Government organised structure. Is that waste the same as the dividends demanded by share holders? Neither system is free, one is paid by all those who can afford it and covers those who can't. The other is paid for those who can afford it, if nothing goes wrong and those who can't can pray hey don't get left behind.

Do Americans get better health care then Europeans? Not from the life expectancy stats. They lag a long way behind many EU countries. Yes some Americans who can afford the best do get it, but we have private medical care in many EU countries that those who can afford it can take. How many die unnecessarily because they can't afford to see a doctor early or the treatment required. And which way are the statistics heading?

A few years ago, a close British friend of mine discovered he had prostate cancer. The cost of getting it cured in the US was way more than the cost of flying back to the UK and getting BETTER treatment. Yes he got better treatment in the UK.

The UK specialists who cured him said many of the tests done in California were a waste of time, the procedure they recommended would not of cured him and he would of eventually needed an operation. Which was the first choice in the UK. When a hospitals concern is to boost profits by building the bill and the other hospitals concern is to get you cured and out of the system which one would you opt for?

He even flew home to get he follow up checks in the UK, it was cheaper than doing t in the US.

He had lost his job and with it his medical cover, no fault of his. Medicaid was not going to cover his costs. At least he has the option of the UK system.

Over the next few decades? Yeah, I am looking forward to that. :1orglaugh

And no way in hell would I go though the misery of a bone marrow transplant for a 50% chance of living 5 more years.

You can take that to the bank.

Another horrifying story that illustrates the dangers of the American system.

Over 20 years ago my Mother and Father lived and worked is Orange County CA. My Father suffered a heart attack and because the hospital wrongly assumed he had health cover they performed open heart surgery. He survived.

A year later he had a swelling of a the aorta and immediately got the paramedics out who said the best place for him was the original hospital that had operated on him. Harbor Hospital in Long Beach I believe. As the time was during the rush hour they decided to send him to a local hospital for a helicopter to take him to the Harbor Hospital. The local hospital seeing the operation he had had, assumed again he had insurance and started doing tests. Even though they have no facilities to operate or carry out any of the procedures he needed.

Later that day he died, in the wrong hospital.

The lawyer we employed to sue the hospital got a specialists report that said he had a less than 50% chance of surviving if he had of been taken to Harbor Hospital ad a legal case would cost a lot and likely to fail.

He had no chance of surviving while the local hospital ran up the bill with tests.

You do realize that the 50% is for all diagnosed cases, right? That includes the cases featuring types with very low survival rates, as well as the cases which are detected too late for treatment to be effective.

If it's detected early on and you have a type with a high survival rate, the reason you'd choose treatment isn't that you might live another 5 years, but that you have a good chance of living another 20+ years - yes, even at your age.

You are a red communism, an Al-Quda supporter, a fag burner .....







:upsidedow

Oh, btw, I am just back from the hospital. My dad had a cathether for urine . He managed to rip it out tonight at 9:10 . It bled a lot since he needs to keep his blood "thin" because of heart condition.
Ambulance came at 9:20, brought him to the hospital. at 9:40 he was in a room, nurses giving him liquids, blood, and so on..Staying for a few days ... He will be OK .
Did not wait, will have nothing pay coming out....

Now, if he wanted a face lift ,,, he would wait for ever ....

Absolute rubbish. The reason for the economic crisis is the lack of supervision the bankers had. They were allowed to fill their pockets and ended up emptying ours.

At our age your approach is wrong. You don't know what is going on inside your body, without very regular check ups, and even with them they can miss something. You don't know that the next time you're out some drunk 18 will not slam into you or some Mum in a super market car park not concentrating because of a car full of kids. Life s full of the unexpected. Car, home and medical insurance is to guard against the unexpected not the expected. I hope you never regret your decision.

100% wrong.

We in the EU pay less and still cover those who can't afford.

Take it out of the wage packet at source. It works fine.

The con is the US system is cheaper, it' not and never will be. EU style National Health Insurance that covers all costs less than the US system. This tells you the truth.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2yy8ubn.gif

Is the American system better? Not according to these figures.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

A shameful list for the most powerful country in the world.

So the question is why does America cling to a bad system?

Look at the money the Insurance companies spend on lobbyists for the answer. A sign of a failing or successful system? And all paid for by those who pay for US Health Insurance.

Sorry for the long and many posts but the last year has taught me the benefit of the EU system.

Baddog I'm trying not to be personal but these are two of the most stupidest posts in this entire thread. YES YOU WOULD PAY OUT FOR THE CURE. Because years of a slow lingering death, bad health and all the things this would lead to would give you the option of suicide or paying out.

I have had 5 months of chemo that has left me exhausted and face 2 months of radiation that will mean not being able to eat normally while I'm having it, got a tube fitted to my stomach for me to feed myself a special liquid, will then have 3-4 months to rebuild my strength.

Would I pay for it and why am I doing this?

YES I would pay and I'm doing it because it will give me another 5 to 15 years of life that is well worth living. Suicide is a comment on a life that says a lot about it's quality.

Cancer is not a quick death, it's a slow lingering disease that if not treated means you either spend a a few months to a few years getting treated or many years in your bed at home suffering. I speak with knowledge.

Common Cancer Death Toll Drops Dramatically

You really should do some research before you post.

No way it costs more in Mexico to get medical treatment. Doctors charge what they can get away with charging. If the country is poor...it's a lot cheaper. And no, I'm not talking about catastrophic cases of cancer, heart surgery, etc. I'm talking what I deal with...a wife and two kids...colds, flu's, etc. It's a fucking ripoff here in the U.S.

And as far as Cialis, propecia, testosterone, and even some antibiotics....I consider what you said to be propaganda that we are all fed. Look at all the things that they eventually make over the counter anyway.

For instance propecia...well just a few years back you also had to get a prescription for Rogaine (minoxidil). You had to go to a doctor, have expensive blood tests done once a month and then go to the drugstore and pay $80 for a months supply.

Then lo and behold the time limit ran out for Upjohn to hold the exclusive rights to it and what happened? Suddenly the govt. decided it was okay to just buy it off the shelf at the fucking grocery store. And now it's $25 for that same bottle of the shit.

Funny how that worked isn't it?

Look, I had a catastrophic accident...my neck and both arms broken into pieces. It really sucked but I took care of it. Now is the time of my life where I DO feel I need health insurance so I have it now.

But the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance companies AND the government (Republicans and Democrats are both on the payroll) all join hands to keep medical costs sky high.

Fuck nationalization. What we need are price controls. You NEVER hear them say that. The President gives these town hall meeting and claims that health costs are a major contributor to our economic woes. And then he doesn't give one solution to LOWERING the prices that they charge.

And YES I can buy ANY pharmaceutical that your doctor prescribes for pennies on the dollar from a Mexican pharmacy. That is a fact. I know it first hand and I saw a big report on 60 minutes a couple of years ago about it.

We (the American people) are simply getting bent over whichever way this turns out. There is no politician who will ever turn down the big money being given under the table to change things here.

I have a pretty good feeling that this is all just a ruse.

A classic version of one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Remember when the magician makes you look at one of his hands, it's because the other one is doing something else. Distraction and deception.

The "economic stimulus" is one of those things. And so is any politician talking about "fixing" health care. The only "fix" for health care is to regulate the prices that they are charging. Then we wouldn't need fucking insurance anymore.

I'd rather my tax money pay to BUILD hospitals and buy expensive medical equipment...instead of this plan which willl basically give the insurance companies millions of more customers and a TRILLION dollars in their pockets to divvy up with doctors, drug companies, and of course the politicians who made it all possible.