What, no thread on health care yet?

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

Jensenman wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

ZOO wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: SS and medicare alone are getting close to bankrupting the country, and this makes them pale in comparison.

I would have guessed that military spending had more to do with it than SS and medicare. I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue.

SS is the single biggest expenditure - passing military by about 1%. Add in Medicare and they represent a third of federal spending. Add Medicaid and other entitlements in and you've got 57% of federal spending. And that wasn't enough - now they want more.

ZOO wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: SS and medicare alone are getting close to bankrupting the country, and this makes them pale in comparison.

I would have guessed that military spending had more to do with it than SS and medicare.

Even better is the income graph, anybody see any problem here?

WilberM3 wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: SS is basically a govt. enacted savings plan. You get out a certain percentage of what you pay in.

and of course the biggest [fiscal] problem with it is the percentage back is often far more than 100% of what's put in.

Social Security is an insurance program, NOT a savings program. As with any insurance program, it spreads risk over a larger population. The actaries can't tell you WHO will die by a certain age, but they can (quite accurately) tell you how MANY will die by that age. SS was built around that premise but as I said it's been morphed and bastardized beyond belief.

I can quote figures straight from my last SS 'statement' showing an over 100% payback. I just have to live long enough. By my figuring, if I retire at 66 and 8 months and then live till 74 I will break even. The average life expectancy is 77.7 years for males (2005 figures).

If I croak right now at age 51, my daughter can collect benefits till age 18 which will be nearly double what I paid in so far.

Hell, it's better than winning the lottery because the gubmint will keep on paying till I die.

There is NO program in the world which can sustain that kind of payout for long.

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

Bing! And the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. I also think that insurers should be encouraged (not exactly sure how, I know, it's tough) to sell similar policies to people outside of work, such that the employer had the choice to add something to your paycheck to compensate you for having to buy the stuff. This way health insurance could be more like car insurance. They compete for you, you get bids, the look at health history, you look at customer service, etc... You could buy or opt out of cancer insurance, etc...

Jensenman wrote: So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

You won't like the answer, because I am Canadian.

I like our system. It works.

ZOO said: I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue

I agree with this. You have the most expensive health care in the world, and now you're at the mercy of the insurance companies.

As long as the insurance companies are involved, you will have a second rate health care system.

Don't you think there is something wrong with the system, when you read stuff like what SVreX posted? I do.

Recently my daughter has had a couple of doctor visits. The doc told me that she charges the insurance providers $150 a visit, or I can pay $80 per visit out of pocket. The existing system doesn't sound exactly like a monopoly to me.

Tort reform = right on! WAYY overdue for 'loser pays'.

I see no reason the insurers couldn't create their own 'group policies' similar to those for large companies.

About the lower prescription medication prices overseas: the way it works now we dumb 'Muricans subsidize the rest of the world. Say Astra Zeneca wants to develop a med to sustain female erections they do it here in the States to get FDA approval which means once that's done it's super simple to get the rest of the planet to approve it. A-Z spends a few billion to do testing etc here in teh States, they want to get that back quick so the American public is zapped for the cost of R&D. When it's sold overseas under price controls that's just gravy. I suggest the FDA ban sales of US developed prescription drugs in countries with price controls. Spread the cost of R&D out across the planet, basically.

zomby woof wrote:

Jensenman wrote: So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

You won't like the answer, because I am Canadian. I like our system. It works.

So let's hear it. Lay it out; what do you pay in taxes, how long do you wait for treatment, etc.

ZOO said: I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue I agree with this. You have the most expensive health care in the world, and now you're at the mercy of the insurance companies. As long as the insurance companies are involved, you will have a second rate health care system. Don't you think there is something wrong with the system, when you read stuff like what SVreX posted? I do.

A lot of the expense we down here bear goes back to this, quoting myself:

About the lower prescription medication prices overseas: the way it works now we dumb 'Muricans subsidize the rest of the world. Say Astra Zeneca wants to develop a med to sustain female erections they do it here in the States to get FDA approval which means once that's done it's super simple to get the rest of the planet to approve it. A-Z spends a few billion to do testing etc here in teh States, they want to get that back quick so the American public is zapped for the cost of R&D. When it's sold overseas under price controls that's just gravy. I suggest the FDA ban sales of US developed prescription drugs in countries with price controls. Spread the cost of R&D out across the planet, basically.

Y'all are welcome. Go back to hating us for all different kinds of reasons.

Jman, we spent lots and lots of money over the last few years on medical stuff that was partially covered by insurance. The front desk had no clue how to bill us. After 4-5 visits they started asking us what we should pay. Try going to the emergency room and paying out of pocket, that never works out well.

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

Hmmm... I'm not sad at all.

My family is healthy and has had adequate medical care. We've always paid out of pocket.

The problem is not that we don't have insurance. The problem is that no one gives a d*mn about trying to control health care costs, and those costs are escalating much more rapidly than we can keep up with.

Trust me. The same will happen to our government. Bigger numbers, but the same problem. If there is no effort to control costs, NO amount of insurance will ever be enough.

tuna55 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

Bing! And the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. I also think that insurers should be encouraged (not exactly sure how, I know, it's tough) to sell similar policies to people outside of work, such that the employer had the choice to add something to your paycheck to compensate you for having to buy the stuff. This way health insurance could be more like car insurance. They compete for you, you get bids, the look at health history, you look at customer service, etc... You could buy or opt out of cancer insurance, etc...

Tuna and Mr Joshua have got it. All I need is some effort to control costs and encourage a real competitive market.

I don't need pity or socialism. My family is in a heck of a lot better position than most. Especially most families who have learned to depend on government handouts.

I'll go out on a limb and say better than all families who have learned to depend on government handouts.

SupraWes wrote:

chaparral wrote: 50K for a family of seven will be HEAVILY into the "subsidy" category. Federal poverty level income for seven is $33,270 this year. I don't know how much the subsidy level is in the final bill but in Massachusetts you'd be eligible for a full subsidy up to 150% of FPL income (around $49,500), with a linear slide down to zero subsidy at 300% of FPL. Your insurance would be almost completely taxpayer-funded, SVreX, if the subsidy limits are similar to those of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts.

Great post if the figures are accurate.

I doubt they are accurate.

Every time I have tried to take advantage of any government program in the last 20 years, I have found that I was just outside the limits of any point I could receive reasonable benefits. I've always had 2 choices- get virtually no benefits, or make less to qualify (which sounds a little to me like trying my best to fail).

I don't know the numbers yet, but I doubt it.

SVreX wrote: Tuna and Mr Joshua have got it. All I need is some effort to control costs and encourage a real competitive market.

You don't get it. It won't happen. Do you think in Canada we don't have issues with special interest groups influencing our laws and the people who run the show? Without being able to have a non-business that supports the health of all by essentially being not for profit, your medical costs will always go up drastically, as the monopoly that is your insurance companies make it so. The change you have been given doesn't seem like change to me. I thought the health care reform would be MUCH more drastic in the states.

I loves Jensenman's "wait times" comment. I consider myself a conservative, but whatever kool-aid you're drinking is poisoning your thought processes. If I'm in need of emergency care, I get it. If I have a insert medical condition that isn't life threatening I wait a bit. If I have the money, I can even GET private health care here. Whats not to like? I get good (not the BEST, but fairly decent, at a good price) healthcare. Oh, and I'm not bankrupted by it like you will be if you are forced to pay.

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote: So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

i would also remove state mandates on minimum coverage so if you want to buy a stripped down catastrophic plan or a custom tailored plan you can. though that might not be constitutional as it may infringe on states' rights but that's certainly worthy of debate.

or howabout if we remove employers entirely from providing health insurance giving significantly more buying power to individuals and familes especially those who are self employed.

personally i think copays should actually be higher or the notion of a copayment nonexistent, as if you paid for each visit with your doctor as a customer you'd demand the best service for your money, they'd have immediate capital to run their business, eliminate TONS of beurocratic bull and ultimately reduce costs.

and maybe most importantly i would allow people to buy insurance across state lines, after all isnt that what the commerce clause is all about? at least it was according to James Madison. He argued that "to regulate commerce" actually meant 'to keep commerce regular' as in prevent states from restricting interstate commerce... yet here we are 220+ years later and i have only 4 options to buy health insurance here in MA out of how many hundreds of providers across the country?

SVreX, You sir are a man. You last few posts epitomize what it means to be a American who can stand on his own two feet. You give me hope that this country just may not go down the toilet.

Thank You Sir!

If you ever make it to Charleston, SC let me know. I would be honored to buy you dinner and a beer or three.

HiTempguy wrote:

SVreX wrote: Tuna and Mr Joshua have got it. All I need is some effort to control costs and encourage a real competitive market.

You don't get it. It won't happen. Do you think in Canada we don't have issues with special interest groups influencing our laws and the people who run the show? Without being able to have a non-business that supports the health of all by essentially being not for profit, your medical costs will always go up drastically, as the monopoly that is your insurance companies make it so. The change you have been given doesn't seem like change to me. I thought the health care reform would be MUCH more drastic in the states. I loves Jensenman's "wait times" comment. I consider myself a conservative, but whatever kool-aid you're drinking is poisoning your thought processes. If I'm in need of emergency care, I get it. If I have a *insert medical condition that isn't life threatening* I wait a bit. If I have the money, I can even GET private health care here. Whats not to like? I get good (not the BEST, but fairly decent, at a good price) healthcare. Oh, and I'm not bankrupted by it like you will be if you are forced to pay.

So you are saying that I am mistaken in desiring a competitive market, that you've got a perfect system, and that we didn't get one because we didn't get your system?

I made no comment whatsoever on your system. But I do know, that's not what has been proposed. Why is it that I am "drinking kool-aid" when I have no complaints about my life except that people are trying to take it away from me, and you agree that our new system sucks? I offered no opinion on Canadian healthcare, but if you are curious, I don't think it's half bad. This bill's passage, however, has definitely NOT left Americans waking up to find that we've all got Canadian passports, and it has definitely NOT given us any improvements over our disastrous mess of a healthcare system.

I'm thinking the kool-aid is flowing a bit freely north of the border, eh?

I'm a Canadian,but I've lived in Michigan for the last ten years. I'm retired now and paying almost $1000/month in health insurance premiums. Now, I'm fortunate in that I can afford that, but I'm not the average American,either. I don't know how a regular factory worker (including the ones who work for the same company I did) can afford that kind of cost.

The level of health care available to me when I was working is superior to what I had in Canada, IMHO. Conversely, it is a Cadillac system. I can get anything done in a matter of days, where I might have to wait for a few weeks in Canada. I have family members who have had major health problems, but their doctors could prioritize them to the front of the line, and did. Example,here, I can have my triple bypass at the same time you can have a hernia repaired. In Canada, you might have to wait a while until the hernia gets attention.

Years ago, I asked my doctor (here) about insurance costs for malpractice. He said that wasn't a big cost to him as long as he took all the precautions. He admitted it was common practice to test a patient 15 ways from Sunday, to be sure he was healthy enough for surgery. I understand they have to minimize the risk of me croaking on the operating table, but two EKGs and a stress test to check me out for a hernia repair???? I think a lot of the cost is in the unecessary testing. The day of the stress test the doctor's office forgot to send the workorder to the lab. I'm trying to do this over lunch and not miss work, so the technician suggested that I could pay for it myself, since I was in a hurry. So I ask "How much?". The answer $1100. I waited until the workorder showed up after lunch, but my insurance company got a bill for the $1100, plus two EKGs, plus the surgery. In the surgical theater there was the anaestithist (sp.?), 2 surgeons, another doctor "observing" and a number of nurses. All for a friggin' hernia !! No wonder health care in the US costs at least twice as much as in Canada. But, I'm not convinced the problem is entirely the big insurance companies. The corporations running a lot of the hospitals must be doing pretty good ,too.

Someone asked about taxes in Canada. They are higher, but the comparison isn't easy to make. Health care is one of the biggest expenses, so is education .The split between federal, provincial (state) and municipal taxes is different than here, but the total is certainly higher at higher incomes. The slope of the tax brackets is steeper than in the US.

I intend to run parallel tax calculations for 2010 to see what the difference really is at my current income level. My wife and I are considering moving back to Ontario, now that I'm retired and we need to know the impact . When I add in my health insurance premiums, it balances up some of the extra income taxes. It really is an apples to oranges comparison, but I know I retained more of my income when I moved to Michigan. Much of the difference stems from the lower slope on tax brackets here, and all the deductions you can take, mortgage interest being the most obvious. Just my $0.02 ,Gang.

Warren

jensenman said: So let's hear it. Lay it out; what do you pay in taxes, how long do you wait for treatment, etc

We've been through this many times. You guys didn't want to hear it then, and you don't want to hear it now.

Although I do pay a little more, the tax issue is more complicated than that. We are a huge country with a small, spread out population.

I don't wait for treatment. If I need it, I get it. It's that simple.

Toyman01 wrote: SVreX, You sir are a man. You last few posts epitomize what it means to be a American who can stand on his own two feet. You give me hope that this country just may not go down the toilet. Thank You Sir! If you ever make it to Charleston, SC let me know. I would be honored to buy you dinner and a beer or three.

What happened to #2?

I get pretty weird at #3. Are you trying to take advantage of me?

I need a better healthcare plan by the time I get to #3.

SVreX wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

Bing! And the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. I also think that insurers should be encouraged (not exactly sure how, I know, it's tough) to sell similar policies to people outside of work, such that the employer had the choice to add something to your paycheck to compensate you for having to buy the stuff. This way health insurance could be more like car insurance. They compete for you, you get bids, the look at health history, you look at customer service, etc... You could buy or opt out of cancer insurance, etc...

Tuna and Mr Joshua have got it. All I need is some effort to control costs and encourage a real competitive market. I don't need pity or socialism. My family is in a heck of a lot better position than most. Especially most families who have learned to depend on government handouts. I'll go out on a limb and say better than all families who have learned to depend on government handouts.

Glad to see we are on the same track - my Dad does it the same way you do. he stockpiles cash for emergencies. He pays in cash. He's always had excellent health care. There is no real connection between health insurance and health care quality.

The way I approach health insurance is that it should be used for catastrophic emergencies only. I have a pretty good rate through my employer right now, but there was a period where I purchased it on the private market, and it was about $100 per month for a really high deductible. I only want to use insurance if I have something catastrophic happen, anyway.

$37 a month here Mitchell, and im ooooooooooooold compared to you.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I fail to see the issue with this. You pay in, you get paid. If you selectively pay out based upon need then you must allow me to selectively pay in or you are just garnishing my wages.

What about the people who pay in but die before they claim any benefits?

It's not supposed to be a guaranteed return - it's a societal safety net. It's like the local SCCA's loaner helmets. I helped pay for them, but I don't feel cheated if I don't use them. I have the helmet situation handled.

Now, I COULD borrow a helmet, but this would be screwing over someone who needs it more than I do.

Currently I pay $70.85 per month on my employer's value plan, which is much better than the one I was paying for on my own. If I ever need to go on my own again, I'll get the information from you. Some of the questions on the private market probably raised my rate: "Have you ever ridden a motorcycle, thought about riding a motorcycle, or looked at a motorcycle with a cocked eyebrow?" and "Have you smoked any tobacco any time in the last two years?" I find it strange that smoking maybe eight cigars in a year is the same as two packs of cigarettes a day.