Forums | MacLife

Nor I, even tho it falls short of dealing with the cozy relationships between Big Pharma, doctors, Unis most concerned with getting grant monies, the increasingly insulated national health agencies more concerned with 'branding' and being the 'thought leaders' on any given issue, ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

resedit wrote:

The issue is that I don't believe your solution is the best way to solve the problem

So what's your solution?

Chickenhawk wrote:

ok, I said it before. I'll repeat it since you have trouble reading.

With a government option competing against private insurance, the consumer will always have the option of going to private insurance.

I really cannot see how anybody could see fault with that.

Ditto.

It's definitely not the system I'd want (in fact it'd be illegal in Canada), but it'd definitely be vastly superior to the status quo. Presumably it would force some competition on the system in terms of pricing and coverage.

The modern insurance phenomena evolved from organized crime and needs to be eliminated.

resedit wrote:

Allow those who can not be insured due to a pre condition to buy into a state sponsored coop system.
The coop would quickly wield millions of dollars and get these health insurance companies bending over backwards for their business - just like despite my pre-condition, I was covered when I worked a blue color job.

For those who have low income, the local government can pay for their participation in the coop, funded by taxes and/or federal help.

In poor areas where federal help is needed, the help should include economic planning to help make the area self sustaining in the future.

So why not make it a Federal co-op with the increased power of the larger group? What's the advantage in limiting it to the State, who has a much smaller budget (practically gone now in CA)?

And that co-op does not address the problem of insurance companies refusing to cover treatments because of profit concerns.

resedit wrote:

My biggest reason for not wanting federal control is a matter of checks and balances.

When the federal government is control, there is very little recourse when the system goes south. Sure, we can vote people out of office, but the bigger federal government is, the more muddy issues become at election day. You may prefer how candidate A wants to run issue U, V, and W but prefer how candidate B wants to run issue X, Y, and Z. Yet both candidates may suck at how they want to run issues R, S, T. Who do you vote for?

When these things are done by private organizations or even local or state government, you have some recourse - you can have the federal government come down on them when they smurf things up.

Even if the Obama administration does things perfectly, how do you know the next administration will, or the administration after that? You don't. And the problem is, once you give that power to the federal government, when they do smurf things up the only way to rescind that power from them may be by taking up arms against them. They don't like to relinquish power we give them any more than Palpatine does.

Don't trust government.

Yeah, whereas fixing the private health care system has been a snap.

As for the politicians, guess what, the voters keep giving them jobs. Funny thing about democracy: the people always get the government they deserve.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

So Farmerkev is afraid that any such program that results from health care reform won't be perfect. http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/hohummax.gif

Wake me up when there is any change.

Not that it won't be perfect, but that it will be worse than what we have now.

I know you don't like to watch Fox News so you probably haven't seen them, but testimony's from people in Canada and England who had to fight the government, often unsuccessfully, to get care they would have had little trouble getting under health care plans typically provided by employers in America are not at all uncommon, and that's what people are afraid of.

Another fear people have, one of the reasons drugs cost so much in America is because many other countries set the cost of drugs making them not as profitable. The fear is that if America nationalizes health care, the profit for drug manufacturers will fall even more and those with the necessary skill and education will move on to different fields where they can make major money.

This kind of stuff pisses me off to know end.

Look I spend a great deal of time in both countries and am am considered a resident of both and have insurance in both, OHIP in Canada and private in the states.  I know about the same amount of people in both countries, both in the same income level and both having largely the same lifestyle.  I also design an integrate medical records and billing systems for a living.  You know how many how many people I know who were denied coverage in Canada: 1.  In the US I know 8 people including my SO being either flat out denied or needlessly held up for medical issues that should have been covered.  But it's not just anecdotal, for a small clinic with one doctor and a PA/NP or two about ~5% of claims will end up being kicked back, of those which have to be hand processed and re-submitted after which up to a hundred a month will never get approved and the patient is left with the bill.  I have yet to have a OHIP leave the patient holding the bag for payment in my 9 years working in this industry.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-06-20 11:01 am)

resedit wrote:

Don't trust government.

Rather we should trust insurance companies and corporate lobbies over which we have NO control?

RatFink wrote:

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

So Farmerkev is afraid that any such program that results from health care reform won't be perfect. http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/hohummax.gif

Wake me up when there is any change.

Not that it won't be perfect, but that it will be worse than what we have now.

I know you don't like to watch Fox News so you probably haven't seen them, but testimony's from people in Canada and England who had to fight the government, often unsuccessfully, to get care they would have had little trouble getting under health care plans typically provided by employers in America are not at all uncommon, and that's what people are afraid of.

Another fear people have, one of the reasons drugs cost so much in America is because many other countries set the cost of drugs making them not as profitable. The fear is that if America nationalizes health care, the profit for drug manufacturers will fall even more and those with the necessary skill and education will move on to different fields where they can make major money.

This kind of stuff pisses me off to know end.

Look I spend a great deal of time in both countries and am am considered a resident of both and have insurance in both, OHIP in Canada and private in the states.  I know about the same amount of people in both countries, both in the same income level and both having largely the same lifestyle.  I also design an integrate medical records and billing systems for a living.  You know how many how many people I know who were denied coverage in Canada: 1.  In the US I know 8 people including my SO being either flat out denied or needlessly held up for medical issues that should have been covered.  But it's not just anecdotal, for a small clinic with one doctor and a PA/NP or two about ~5% of claims will end up being kicked back, of those which have to be hand processed and re-submitted after which up to a hundred a month will never get approved and the patient is left with the bill.  I have yet to have a OHIP leave the patient holding the bag for payment in my 9 years working in this industry.

I just wanted to quote that in hopes more people would read it.

Ratty knows what's what.

JakeTheTall wrote:

So resedit has access to state-sponsored health care, but wants to deny health care people who don't live in a county/state with state-sponsored health care ?  Because he thinks there's a chance the quality of his health care might decline a little ?

For the second time - I don't want to deny anyone health care.

Please stop making such idiotic accusations.

Just because I don't like *your* solution to a problem does not mean I don't want a solution to the problem.

The insurance companies can (and do) have their asses handed to them by the government, and human resource departments can (and do) decide to take their business elsewhere.

When it is all done by the government and the government decides not to treat you or won't do so in a timely manner, you have no recourse unless you are rich. Basically, you are smurfed.

resedit wrote:

The insurance companies can (and do) have their asses handed to them by the government, and human resource departments can (and do) decide to take their business elsewhere.

Citation[s], not beliefs, please.

Where do you draw the line on what should and shouldn't be profit based?

Farmerkev wrote:

Where do you draw the line on what should and shouldn't be profit based?

Shouldn't: any practice or policy that harms patients.