Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

A lot of people w/o health insurance are self employed and choosing not to buy insurance because they would rather use the money to build their business and so they take a gamble, a risk. Sometimes they lose.

Percentage, please.

They will get billed in ALL cases. Unless you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid you are SOL. The problem in the US is increased by the problems people have getting their insurance companies to pay out. Even if you HAVE insurance, you still run the risk that you will not get care when you need it (that's the real point in Sicko).

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Especially since "socialist" is just a bogeyman scare word that was once used to justify - nearly everything. I'm hoping that the fact that just about everyone has experience with or knows someone who was treated poorly by our current system will eventually bring about a change.

Even if you've had no problems with your health care, there aren't as many employer-paid plans as there used to be and people are going to get tired of paying continually rising fees on their individual plans.

Our system beats the hell out of having to go to a different country because your doctors who are able to deal with your ailment have fled your country - if they even ever existed.

WTF does this imaginary situation have to do with anything?

Ribtorus wrote:

I think "murderous, grotesquely corrupt" is overstating things quite a bit.

As I see it, the present employer driven system isn't intended to cover everyone under all circumstances. It can only be intended to cover the employed and possibly their families. So if there's no intent that such a system covers everyone, it's a strawman to criticise the fact that it doesn't cover everyone.

For the unemployed or uninsured, there's a publicly funded system.

If there was, in fact, such a system we wouldn't have this topic. But you're Canadian, so I can understand that you can't appreciate how draconian the US system is.

I think "murderous, grotesquely corrupt" is stating things quite precisely.

robco wrote:

I'm sure some sort of compromise could be reached.  I could see government providing a baseline of care with copays and deductibles and then private insurance stepping in to fill in gaps (like Medicare now).

The insurance companies are going to spend a lot of money trying to convince us how bad that idea is because they stand to lose a LOT of business. I'm hoping for once that advertising fails to work.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What an odd assumption to make.

No health insurance means no health insurance.

I'm not saying they wouldn't get billed for their treatment in many cases.

How much to various medical procedures cost, do you know?

Did you know that medical expenses are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States?

(edited to add link)

My uncle in California went bankrupt because of his heart attack. But he got treated.

OK.  Let's say you make $40K/year.  You have rent, car, food, etc.  Depending on where you live, you may be doing well, or barely getting by.  Now let's say you have kids, so more food, clothes and other kid-related expenses.  Coverage for you and your family will run a few hundred a month.  You may or may not be able to easily afford that, or afford that, plus putting money into an HSA, retirement, etc.  Let's say you even have insurance, but because of rising costs, your share of premiums keeps increasing (but your salary doesn't) and coverage keeps getting reduced (higher copays, higher deductibles).

Now someone gets sick, really sick.  Oops.  You have coverage, but still have to pay thousands out-of-pocket, which isn't easy.  You'll have to wipe out savings, possibly retirement savings as well to cover the bills - if you can.  And heaven forbid you or someone in your family has a chronic condition.

People can plan and save - if they have the disposable income to do so.  Many have coverage but don't realize that they still have to pay a lot of the costs.  Wages have been stagnant for some time and haven't kept up with inflation - especially not inflated medical costs.  Sure, there are some things that could be discarded (cable TV, internet, computers, eating out, movies), but others that can't (rent, utilities, food).  And well, most of us like a few creature comforts.

The problem isn't that poor people don't get care, they actually can.  There are a fair number of uninsured that qualify for help and don't know it.  But many don't qualify and can't afford private coverage.  Or they're covered, but not very well, so even with coverage, they wind up bankrupt because they were denied coverage or had to fight the insurance company or their coverage has been dropped to a lower level and they now have to pick up a greater portion of the tab.

Healthcare does need to become more efficient, that is true.  Profit is the typical motivator for that.  But profit should not be the driving force in healthcare.  The quality of care isn't an issue in this country.  The issue is access.  The US has some of the best hospitals and healthcare providers in the world.  Problem is, a fair number of people can't access the services.  Asking someone who is already just getting by to shoulder more of the cost isn't a solution, unless we're willing to deal with the growing wage gap in this country.

Last edited by robco (2007-07-20 12:58 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Is it medical costs or is it poor planning to deal with costs when they happen?

How the hell are working people supposed to plan for the insane costs associated with a long list of illnesses and accidents? Plant a money tree out back?

Working people with full time jobs almost always have the ability to buy into medical insurance through their employer. In fact, I believe it is law (at least in some states) that any company with a fairly low number (or more) of full time employees offer insurance in the benefits package.

I had medical insurance when I worked as a $9.00/hr unarmed security guard.

In "Sicko" they showed a guy who cut off two fingers in a carpentry accident. The hospital told him it would cost $20,000 to reattach the ring finger and $60,000 to reattach the middle finger. And that's a relatively minor incident.

Imagine how much it costs to have a bone marrow transplant or a kidney transplant or to give birth.

Not cheap. I suspect though that those cases are the minority of health related bankruptsy.

Last edited by resedit (2007-07-20 1:05 pm)

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Is it medical costs or is it poor planning to deal with costs when they happen?

How the hell are working people supposed to plan for the insane costs associated with a long list of illnesses and accidents? Plant a money tree out back?

Working people with full time jobs almost always have the ability to buy into medical insurance through their employer. In fact, I believe it is law (at least in some states) that any company with a fairly low number (or more) of full time employees offer insurance in the benefits package.

I had medical insurance when I worked as a $9.00/hr unarmed security guard.

In "Sicko" they showed a guy who cut off two fingers in a carpentry accident. The hospital told him it would cost $20,000 to reattach the ring finger and $60,000 to reattach the middle finger. And that's a relatively minor incident.

Imagine how much it costs to have a bone marrow transplant or a kidney transplant or to give birth.

Not cheap. I suspect though that those cases are the minority of health related bankruptsy.

Can they get health insurance if they have pre-existing conditions? I have asthma and a family history of cancer ... there's an excellent chance no one would cover me.

And what happens if your insurer refuses to cover treatment, or just plain drops you? Both happen frequently -- and frankly it astonishes me that it's legal.

And what happens if your insurer refuses to cover treatment, or just plain drops you? Both happen frequently

I do not believe they can drop you if your insurance is through an employer.
Growing up - I cost Kaiser a crapload of money - and so did my little sister. We didn't get dropped.

I had an MRI done when the procedure was so new (and expensive) they had to send us all the way to SF to have it done.

Last edited by resedit (2007-07-20 1:27 pm)

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

Res, you are looking at the Compu$erve history from the wrong perspctive. The net wasn't developed through comercial interests, but from govenment interests, which was then taken up by comercial interests. ARPA/DARPA paved the way. In that context Gore is correct in taking some credit, as an enabler.

ARPA/DARPA paved the way without Gore, and universities and the military were creating the backbone of what would become the internet without gore.

I've no doubt that he authored or supported a bill to help fund it, but he really had nothing to do with it - it was happening and was going to happen with or without him in the congress.

Gore was in Vietnam when BB/N was awarded the contract to 'develop' the backbone.

he authored or supported a bill to help fund it

By that time CompuServe et al are in.

It was in the freeing of the tethers from the original inception that he was behind. Which then allowed the blossoming of many ISP's besides the first few.

Otherwise, today's Net would not exist the way it does. CompuServe would STILL be tinkering along around the edges - the edges of the Military and University backbones borne by BB/N.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

Working people with full time jobs almost always have the ability to buy into medical insurance through their employer. In fact, I believe it is law (at least in some states) that any company with a fairly low number (or more) of full time employees offer insurance in the benefits package

Can you cite that law? I don't think there is any such requirement anywhere.

I'm looking for it.
I have found the COBRA law that requires employees who were covered to be able to continue coverage if they lose their job or are moved to part time work.

The way I remember it - there are two classifications of businesses. Small business do not have to offer insurance to their full time employees, large businesses do - which is one of the reasons Walmart only liked to give part time jobs.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

Working people with full time jobs almost always have the ability to buy into medical insurance through their employer. In fact, I believe it is law (at least in some states) that any company with a fairly low number (or more) of full time employees offer insurance in the benefits package

Can you cite that law? I don't think there is any such requirement anywhere.

I'm looking for it.
I have found the COBRA law that requires employees who were covered to be able to continue coverage if they lose their job or are moved to part time work.

The way I remember it - there are two classifications of businesses. Small business do not have to offer insurance to their full time employees, large businesses do - which is one of the reasons Walmart only liked to give part time jobs.

Keep looking. COBRA ain't it. COBRA just means that the insurance company has to cover you for six months, but there is no limit on the fee charged. A lot of workers can't take advantage of COBRA because the fee is usually about three times what the employee was paying.