PDA

View Full Version : You guys are gonna have a Cow....WTG! Mass!



DeSPURado
07-14-2004, 10:41 PM
BOSTON - Lawmakers on Wednesday took a step toward making Massachusetts the first state to make comprehensive and affordable health care a constitutionally protected right.

The proposed amendment to the state's constitution was approved during a joint session of the House and Senate. If approved a second time during the 2005-2006 legislative session, the question will go before voters in 2006.

The amendment states that "it shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials ... to enact and implement such laws as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lack comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices."

"We're trying to provide justice in health care so that every single citizen has a health care plan," said Sen. Steven Tolman, D-Boston.

The proposed amendment was initiated when more than 70,000 registered voters signed a petition. As a result, only 51 of the 200 state representatives and senators need support the proposal for it to go before voters.

The vote Wednesday was overwhelming, with lawmakers approving it 153-41.

Supporters argue that the cost of providing universal coverage through a variety of public and private means could be made up by eliminating billions of dollars in unnecessary costs currently built into the state's health care system.

The National Federation for Independent Business said the price tag of providing health care to all citizens would be immense.

Comcast (news?) (http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/ce7a9f55-5805-4536-bd17-6066226ca3cc.html)

Truthsayer
07-15-2004, 09:04 AM
Massachesetts will become a Mecca for chronically ill people. I wonder if they have thought about that.

spurster
07-15-2004, 10:05 AM
Unless they put limits on expensive medicine, I don't see how it is going to work.

Mr George Clinton
07-15-2004, 12:50 PM
Now that is FUNK'D up.

http://www.georgeclinton.com/htmlversion/gc/jpg/GeorgeC_beeler.jpg

Yonivore
07-15-2004, 04:42 PM
Let the haj begin. :rollin

Hook Dem
07-15-2004, 05:59 PM
Massachusetts??? What a coincidence! The "K" brothers strike again!:lol

Yonivore
07-15-2004, 06:05 PM
"Massachesetts will become a Mecca for chronically ill people."
Isn't it already a Mecca for the mentally ill?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/images/2000_08/kennedy.jpg

MannyIsGod
07-15-2004, 06:08 PM
ha, i can 't wait to see how the plan on affording that.

Yonivore
07-15-2004, 06:20 PM
Okay, now I am gonna have a cow! Manny met a social program that gives him pause?

DeSPURado
07-15-2004, 06:51 PM
Massachusetts??? What a coincidence! The "K" brothers strike again!:lol

Ted Kennedy/ John Kerry had something to do with this decision? Gee how was that?

A few other minor points....I know I can't prove to you that Universal Healthcare is best handled by the government so I am not going to try.

You guys seem to fail to recognize that a simple residency restriction, would prevent freeloaders.

Has anyone ever thought that the right to life liberty and the persuit of hapiness might include the right to a healthy life? I certainly do.



Poll: Public supports health care for all
WASHINGTON (AP) — The public's growing unease with the current health care system has built support for a new approach that would mean care for all Americans and changes in laws governing prescription drugs, a poll suggests.

A sizable majority, 70%, said it should be legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs outside the United States, according to the ABC News-Washington Post poll. One in eight respondents said they or someone in their home has done just that. Such purchases can save money but they violate the law.

The poll released Sunday found that more than half of Americans, 54%, are dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States while 44% are satisfied. That dissatisfaction is 10 percentage points higher than in 2000 and higher than it has been in the past decade when compared with earlier surveys.

While a solid majority of people tended to be happy with their own quality of health care, the poll found "significant concern with the system more broadly," said ABC pollster Gary Langer, who directed the extensive survey.

Those concerns included worries about future costs, declining coverage and the problems of people who lack insurance.

The poll found that six in 10 people surveyed say they are worried about being able to afford health insurance in the future. More than one in six said they have no insurance. The government says there were 43.6 million uninsured U.S. residents at some point during 2002, accounting for 15.2% of the population.

The poll found that 53% of those who are insured say they are worried about losing their insurance because of loss of a job. The percentage of those who have health insurance and are satisfied with the cost, 64%, has dropped by 9 percentage points since 1997.

By almost a 2-1 margin in this poll, 62% to 32%, Americans said they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.

...

Among the poll's other findings:

• Eight in 10 in the poll said it is more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans even if it means higher taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.

• Almost two-thirds said they think the country is headed toward rationing of health care so that some medical procedures are no longer covered by insurance.

• Almost one-third of those who make less than $20,000 a year were uninsured, compared with 8% of those who make more than $50,000 a year.

The poll of 1,000 adults was taken Oct. 9-13 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

USAtoday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm)

Hook Dem
07-15-2004, 07:52 PM
"Ted Kennedy/ John Kerry had something to do with this decision? Gee how was that?" .........Influence...my dear Mr. Watson.....Influence!:lol Oh well, at least you knew who the "K" brothers were!:rollin

DeSPURado
07-15-2004, 09:38 PM
That would be Dr. Watson to you.....

MannyIsGod
07-16-2004, 08:32 AM
i know you say that in jest yoni, but quite seriously i don't know why you think i dig social programs. quite on the contrary i am against most, and that is where i lean greatly torwards my libertarian roots.

it's in the corporate/business sector where i advocate more goverment involvement as a watchdog, but not nessecarily as is being done now.

MannyIsGod
07-16-2004, 08:44 AM
btw, those poll numbers mean jack shit to me, and i'll tell you why. [you can use this for a lot of polls, in my opinion]

the health care crisis is one that is largely made up by politicians as a way of gaining votes. look at me, look at me i'm cantidate a and this is how i am going to solve this problem for you better than cantidate b. no no, look at me, i'm cantidate b and this is how i plan to solve the problem for you better than cantidate a.

it's an artificial problem created by politicians, and played up by the media. it's not the first, and won't be the last. the truth is that there is no healthcare crisis in america. if you need healthcare, you can get it. that doesn't mean i should foot the bill, or the rest of the taxpayers.

i agree in medicaid and medicare programs, and programs such as chips, but the reality is that people want to be overinsured. i sold health insurance in the past, and i know this for a fact. people want to have cheap health insurance that over insures them and they don't want to take on any liablity.

DeSPURado
07-16-2004, 05:56 PM
I completely disagree Manny....I don't think you can just pass off a poll because you think politicians are trying to instill it as a fear into Americans....Partially because its a real problem. Partially because there are no candidates even in the dem party who run off of Universal Healthcare. (Dennis Kucinich aside.)


The government says there were 43.6 million uninsured U.S. residents at some point during 2002, accounting for 15.2% of the population.

MannyIsGod
07-16-2004, 08:20 PM
big deal, once again, not having insurance does not mean you don't get health care, it simply means you will get a bill.

DeSPURado
07-16-2004, 08:37 PM
:lol

Did you read the article a few days ago that says that people without insurance get their prices jacked up because they don't have someone bartering lower prices for them? So not only do you get a bill you get a bill thats higher than everyone else.

MannyIsGod
07-16-2004, 08:57 PM
that's a totally different issue.

politicians andpeople who love to spout off about the healthcare crisis love to make people believe that unless we save these people, they are being denied health care.

that is not the case. anyone can go down to university hospital and the like and regardless of your insurance situation you will recieve care.

there are insurance policiys out there which cover 80 percent of any hospital vists, but don't cover doctors visits. they are extremely cheap and provide you with lots of protection in case you have to have major health care.

however, people want to be able to go to the doctor everytime they find a booger in their nose, and don't want to pay the 400 dollar amonth premiums that are the norm for polcies which cover that. on top of that,they want the goverment to save them if they can't afford that.

everyone should have access to healthcare, and they do.

DeSPURado
07-16-2004, 09:33 PM
I guess my best retort for you Manny is that none of that addresses the fact that people aren't satisfied with the healthcare as it stands. Nor does it argue with how demanding that a not for profit insurance system would not be a better if not just as viable a system. And then my argument to you is that as the wealthiest civilization in the world we have the moral and ethical obligation to make healthcare equally accessible to the rich and the poor.

If its even possible to provide Universal Healthcare (which if we look at those countries that already have it we can see that it is indeed possible.) we have a moral responsibility to persue such a noble goal.

MannyIsGod
07-16-2004, 10:05 PM
heh, you let me know when the most efficient healthcare system is a non profit one.

DeSPURado
07-16-2004, 10:13 PM
Is losing some efficiency a really bad thing if it garuntees equal healthcare for everyone? I mean I wouldn't mind waiting 3 months for a dentist appointment if it means homeless kids can get the same dental care that I can (hell I already have to wait for a month.) I really think its a sacrifice that can be made especially if the triage type system instituted involves a selfchecking system for abuses.

spurster
07-16-2004, 10:19 PM
Do you have a link to one of those $400/month policies?

DeSPURado
07-16-2004, 10:22 PM
The Uninsured

More than 74 million Americans were uninsured for all or part of 2001-2002 -- that’s nearly one-third of all Americans under age 65. Because the cost of health care keeps rising out of control, being uninsured can happen to any of us. And when it does happen, it means our families are more likley to either forego needed medical care, or experience severe financial hardship trying to afford it.

Fact: 41.2 million Americans were without health insurance for all of last year.1

Fact: Another 34 million were without of insurance for part of the last two years.2

:shock Fact: More than 7 out of 10 uninsured have a full-time worker at home.3

:shock Fact: The uninsured have 25 percent higher mortality rates, and are more likely to die at a younger age.4

:shock Fact: After job loss, being uninsured and getting sick is the most common reason people file bankruptcy.5



1 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2002 Annual Demographic Supplements.
2 Families USA "Going Without Health Insurance" March 5, 2002.
3 KFF state health facts.
4 Institute of Medicine, Care Without Coverage, 2002.
5 "Rethinking the Debates over Health Care Financing: Evidence from the Bankruptcy Courts," with Jacoby and Sullivan 176 NYU Law Review (2001).

Americansfor Healthcare (http://www.americansforhealthcare.com/facts/groups/uninsured.cfm)

Joe Chalupa
07-16-2004, 10:37 PM
That is what I don't understand.

If anyone can go to University Hospital regardless of your insurance...then why shouldn't I just go and get free health care?

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 12:28 AM
spurster, if you are looking for affordable health insurance, i can put you in contact with a few people.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 12:47 AM
there problem with a perfect universal healthcare system is that part of the population will in the end hold up a higher end up the bargain than others.

social programs like this in the end become nothing more than a crutch that provides no incentive for people to stand on their own 2 feet.

the homeless can get healthcare if they need it, don't patronize them as though they are some helpless sector of society that can't help themselves.

if you want to reform the rising cost of healthcare, we can start in many places that do not involve taking more tax money from the people of this country and redistributing it in an inefficent goverment run system.

as i mentoined before, people want to be 100 percent insured and want it to be done for a low cost. this is not going to be the case, it simply can not be. liability insurance on my vehicle is much cheaper than insuring everything possible that could happen to it.

as i mentoined, there are affordable insurance plans out there with excellent insurance companies that will cover 80 percent of your hospital costs but not doctors visits. lets say one of these polcies costs 100 a month. these figures are simply hypothetical for the purpose of making my point, but aren't too far off.

now, lets say that comprehensive hmo plan such as blue cross and blue shield plan will cost you around 500 dollars a month for a family of 4 and will cover doctors visits with a copay of 20 dollars. now, the average person will make one doctors visit a year, and in order to have that insured people have to pay an extra 4800 dollars a year.

it doesn't make much sense, but you'd be suprised how hard it is to convince people that paying for a 60 dollar doctors visit or 2 a year is the smart move when compared to paying an extra 4 and a half grand a year to have it covered.

there is also insurance abuse. those of you who have coverage through work where it is mostly paid for by the company will abuse it like crazy. you will go to the doctor the moment you sneeze 2 times in a row. well, those unessecary doctors visits add up when it comes time for the insurance companies to balance their books. they in turn have to raise rates.

it is as though insurance companies don't have a right to make money in the eyes of the american public. you see it when companies try to pull out of markets and not sell homewoners insurance because they are losing money. do you remember the mold fiasco a few years ago. a judge tells companies they have to cover mold in their coverage and then they aren't allowed to stop selling the coverage all together. it's ridiculous. if the casinos in vegas worked this way we'd all be rich.

if we would simply let these companies operate under less regulation as far as what coverages they sell, and if people would accept some responsiblity for some of the costs, we would eliminate the so called health care crisis and premiums would come down.

but instead, some would rather start up a sytem that is bound to be inefficent and substandard when it comes to healthcare. that would be the begining of a bad health care crisis.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 01:13 AM
social programs like this in the end become nothing more than a crutch that provides no incentive for people to stand on their own 2 feet.

The same could be said about education.......


as i mentoined before, people want to be 100 percent insured and want it to be done for a low cost. this is not going to be the case, it simply can not be. liability insurance on my vehicle is much cheaper than insuring everything possible that could happen to it.

How does the rest of the world do it then? If its completely impossible how are they making it possible?


if you want to reform the rising cost of healthcare, we can start in many places that do not involve taking more tax money from the people of this country and redistributing it in an inefficent goverment run system.

Who said anything about doing that? I would take the money from paying off the national debt (no interest payments) And cut into millitary spending.

You really don't adress any of the problems other than say its unworkable...Which to me is a fallacy since we see it working in most of the rest of the world. You go on a few slippery slope arguments but again that would be an argumentative fallacy. I still don't see how that justifies a for profit system that allows people to die and go bankrupt without health insurance.


Executive Summary

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.
link (http://cthealth.server101.com/healthcare_bureaucracy_u_s__vs__canada.htm)

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 01:19 AM
the wait times in canda and great britian are insane, it is not working. unless you have a warped sense of what working is.

the people in those countries don't die due to no healthcare, they simply die waiting.

goverment healthcare is certainly possible, it's just a really shitty system that hurts more than it benifits.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 01:30 AM
There were some stories about this back in 2002, care to show me evidence of the same things happening today? And from what I can find that happened when they tried to privatize part of their healthcare.

I m,ean what it looks like to me is that Republicans saw a crisis and hailed it as the end of socialized medicince, back when that was happening....Well guess what they fixed the problems, and its still ticking.

spurster
07-17-2004, 12:32 PM
the wait times in canda and great britian are insane, it is not working. unless you have a warped sense of what working is.

the people in those countries don't die due to no healthcare, they simply die waiting.

goverment healthcare is certainly possible, it's just a really shitty system that hurts more than it benifits.
I call BS. Both Canada and Great Britain have lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy than the US.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html)

Now a lot of their health care system might be a lot more inconvenient, but aren't you (Manny) the one that is telling us that we are expecting too much from our health insurance.

I'm still waiting for a link to one of these $400/month plans that I can just sign up for.

No, I don't need health insurance. I get mine through work, but the total cost is well more than $400/month. It's true that it's one of these co-pay plans.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:09 PM
ER backlog means ambulance delays: CTV report







Interactive
• Web Sites: Paramedic Association of Canada; Calgary EMS; Toronto EMS; Ottawa EMS


ALYSSA SCHWARTZ
CTV News Staff, Oct. 18, 2002


A CTV News investigation has found a critical backlog in Canadian emergency rooms is costing ambulance crews thousands of hours annually. Delays in transferring ill patients to the care of doctors mean fewer crews are on the road, available to handle other critical cases.

Across the country, emergency rooms are filled beyond capacity. Patients crowd the halls waiting for beds, while ambulances are turned away from hospital after hospital in their search for a care centre with room to admit new patients.

Emergency crews are facing the brunt of those delays, sometimes forced to wait hours to offload their patients. The process of explaining a patient's case and filling out paperwork, which comes before a stretcher is cleared to head out to another emergency, is one that should take paramedics only about 35 minutes.

CTV News: Paramedics waiting in ERs instead of working, Avis Favaro reports

But CTV News found some cases in which emergency personnel weren't cleared for more than six hours, leaving a gaping hole in the availability of emergency care.

"There is a consistent increase in the time we are waiting in emergency rooms across the country," says Paul Morneau, president of the Paramedic Association of Canada.

"It's not uncommon to hear of wait times of two hours, and then you hear of three, four, seven, eight, 10-hour waits, where paramedics are stuck with patients on stretchers in Emergency, waiting for care. And, of course, when a paramedic is stuck for that many hours, they are not responding to other calls in the community," Morneau told CTV's Avis Favaro.

Calgary normally has 32 ambulances on the road to handle emergencies. But with 4,500 hours lost in the first seven months of this year, offload waiting times are threatening the city's ability to care for patients. A few weeks ago, the Alberta city felt the strain of the problem when it was left with only a handful of paramedics on the road.

"We had only two (ambulances) available for a population exceeding 900,000. That's quite a concern to us," says Mike Plato of Calgary Emergency Medical Services.

"We want to be on the streets doing our job," says paramedic Drew Nelson. But with emergency rooms backed up, Nelson admits that's not always possible.

"It's not uncommon for us to sit here for an hour and a half or longer. The longest my partner and I have had was six hours."

The problem is not limited to Calgary. "It's bad in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Toronto," says Morneau.

In Ottawa, a record 12,000 hours have been lost so far this year by crews waiting to offload patients, CTV has learned.

"That's the equivalent of having two ambulances, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, taken off the road, lost to the system," says Anthony Di Monte of Ottawa Emergency Services, which transports approximately 45,000 patients every year.

With over 11,000 hours lost in the first nine months of 2002, Toronto is facing a similar strain.

That number is up from the 2,520 hours ambulances spent in offloading time in all of 2000. One recent night, there was not a single ambulance available to treat the city's three million residents -- all of the city's crews were waiting for patients to be admitted to area hospitals.

Comparable data was unavailable for Montreal and Vancouver, but both cities are reportedly suffering similar problems, as are all major Canadian urban centres, the Paramedics Association of Canada says.

"We have identified a crisis that needs to be handled now," Di Monte told CTV. "Not doing so would be irresponsible."

The solution, experts say, isn't putting more ambulances on the road -- it's making more room for patients in Canadian hospitals. With no new beds, a slew of new emergency personnel would only spend their time waiting for patients to be admitted.

"When we get stuffed full of patients in emergency, then the new people coming in by ambulance have no place to go," says Dr. Garth Dickinson of Ottawa Hospital General Campus.

Emergency workers say unless things change, it's a matter of time before the backlog takes its toll on Canadians' health.

"My fear is that if it keeps on that trend it's going to hit a day that someone will call for an ambulance and there won't be one there," says Dallas Pierson of Calgary Emergency Services Dispatch.

"It's about your mother, your father, your child, at home (or) in the community, who is having a heart attack or choking. And the paramedics, because there's so few of us out there able to respond, can't respond to that emergency," Morneau says.

With a report from CTV's Health Reporter Avis Favaro

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:12 PM
Daily Policy Digest

Health Issues

Monday, October 01, 2001


Despite a massive infusion of federal spending on health care, waiting lists in Canada have grown significantly. Total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 13.1 weeks in 1999 to 16.2 weeks in 2000-01 (a 23.7 percent increase), according to a Fraser Institute study.

Canada-wide, total waiting time increased significantly in 2000-01 and its level is high, both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, waiting time in 2000-01 is 69 percent higher. Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians wait longer than Americans and Germans for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British.

Among the significant findings of the study:


The rise in waiting time between 1999 and 2000-01 is principally a result of an increase in the waiting time between GP referral and specialist consultation -- increasing from 4.9 weeks in 1999 to 7.2 weeks in 2000-01, an increase of 46.9 percent.
Waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment increased for Canada as a whole between 1999 and 2000-01, rising from 8.2 to 9.0 weeks, an increase of 9.8 percent.
Throughout Canada, the total number of people estimated to be waiting for treatment was 878,088 in 2000-01, an increase of 3 percent between 1999 and 2000-01.
The highest percentage of patients seeking treatment outside of Canada were those in need of radiation oncology (5.6 percent). For all specialties, 1.7 percent of patients left the country to receive treatment.

Source: Michael Walker and Greg Wilson, "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada," Critical Issues Bulletin, September 2001, Fraser Institute, 4th Floor 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6J 3G7, Canada, (604) 688-0221.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 06:15 PM
Manny I specifically asked you for something more recently than 2002. Are you conceding the point?


There were some stories about this back in 2002, care to show me evidence of the same things happening today? And from what I can find that happened when they tried to privatize part of their healthcare.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:23 PM
insurance isn't sold in the value meal format, so you can't simply get a link to a site where you purchase a number 3 at 400 dollars a month.

a reason that those premiums are so high is that with group insurance the costs for the coverage are menat to be distributed throughout the group.

lets say we have a group of 30 people. out of those 30, 28 are healthy as can be and are not a high risk for the company to insure. but the other 2 have had some sort of major surgery and constitute a very high risk to insure.

well, the premiums of those other 28 people just got hurt big time so that the 2 people that would otherwise be uninsured are now covered.

there are plenty of places you can get your family covered for well under 400 dollars a month. i sold polcies for families of 4 myself at under 200 dollars at times.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:25 PM
the reason tehre were more storiesback then is thats when a huge study was done.

studies aren't done all the time and the media keeps up on storeis while hot.

however, if you think the problem has been fixed in 2 years, then feel free to take this as a concession. i think even the most optomstic views of goverment work know that it is a slow process to correct.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:29 PM
ask and you shall recieve, from march of this year...

Budget boosts public health, ignores wait times
Canadian Press

The federal budget provides the provinces with new money to promote public health, but not to cut waiting lists or to deal with the shortage of doctors and nurses.

Core questions about sustaining medicare have effectively been deferred for federal-provincial negotiations scheduled during the summer.

That leaves the government's avowed top priority, health care, as a potential soft spot in the runup to the next election.

The budget delivered Tuesday confirms a $2-billion payment already promised to the provinces and territories. However, it is a one-time injection and will not be incorporated into base funding.

As expected, Ottawa will provide money to create a new Canada Public Health Agency to co-ordinate the national response to emergencies like SARS.

However, most of the agency's resources will come from the transfer of existing Health Canada programs. There will be $165 million for new labs, surveillance systems and research.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale reiterated the government's recognition that health care is the No. 1 priority of Canadians.

The provinces will get $400 million in new money to improve immunization programs and to relieve stress on local public health systems.

"No other priority speaks so eloquently to the commitments we have made to one another as citizens," Goodale said in his budget speech.

However, there is no long-term boost in federal money as was recommended in the report from Roy Romanow, and as premiers have been demanding.

There was no mention of a national home-care program or coverage of drug costs, to which the previous government committed in the Feb. 2, 2003 first ministers health accord.

The money for public health -- that is, to prevent illness -- could relieve some pressure on hospitals but it is unlikely to bring much relief in a beleaguered health system that cost $121-billion in 2003.

About $100 million in new money will go to support an electronic health information system, a project that has been under way for several years.

The budget promises "improved tax fairness" for people with disabilities, and care-givers, and $30 million to support programs for those with disabilities.

Basically, it will be easier for care-givers to claim the expenses they face to support a loved one, such as institutional fees.

And it will be easier for people with disabilities to claim extra expenses they face as a result of their disabilities in working or attending school.

There is no promise on action to shorten waiting lists, even though this was explicitly promised in the throne speech.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 06:45 PM
You know they are talking about wait lists which aren't involved in hospital visits. So how is this that bad of a thing? Again I would accept a three month waiting list for going to the dentist if I it meant that everyone had access to the same care as me...

the most telling statistic is in the mortality rates...We have a higher one than any socialized nation.

Rank &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Country &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Mean Lifespan
1 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Japan 74.5
2 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Australia 73.2
3 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp France &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 73.1
4 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Sweden &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 73.0
5 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Spain &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.8
6 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Italy &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.7
7 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Greece &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.5
8 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Switzerland &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.5
9 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Monaco &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.4
10 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Andorra &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 72.3
: &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp : &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp :
24 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp United States &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 70.0

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 06:55 PM
The funny thing is that we already pay for socialized healthcare...Per capita we pay more on healthcare than most socialized nations....This I think has to do with the fact that doing this half way, is actually less cost effective than doing it all the way or not at all.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v312/despurado/Health_per_capita_OECD.gif

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:57 PM
well, there are many contributing factors to those type of statistics which are notlimited to one thing like this.

yes, and there are also 8 hour long visits to the emergency room which lowers the quality of care immensly and shows that doctors are overworked.

why/ because free services are overused.

i don't see why people think that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to healthcare as if it's some mysterious service. it's goverment medling which tends to drive the price up.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 06:58 PM
i absolutely agree with your last statement. doing it in the half ass way that we do it is moronic.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 07:04 PM
You know 8 hour hospital waits aren't completely unheard of here in the states.

Well lets wait for a decade and a half and see how it works out in Mass....Thats one good thing about the nation/ state seperation....One state can be a test state for the rest of the country.

DeSPURado
07-17-2004, 07:46 PM
btw have a great weekend...Its been nice arguing in a civilized fashion here for once.

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 08:54 PM
amen to that.

spurster
07-17-2004, 09:32 PM
I think it's a little more than $200/month or $400/month

www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

“Today’s average premium for a family insurance policy -- $9,086 a year – already represents 21% of the national median household income of $42, 409.” (Julie Appleby, “Health Insurance premiums crash down on middle class, $9,086 average cost out of reach for many families, USA Today, 17 March 2004).

Health insurance premiums will rise to an average of more than $14,500 for family coverage in 2006 (“Charting the Cost of Inaction,” National Coalition on Health Care, May 2003.)

MannyIsGod
07-17-2004, 10:31 PM
i'm telling you. i sold the damn things. you can pull out whatever stats you want, i know for a fact that there are polcies out there at that cost because i sold them. i sold them to people in this forum for crying out loud.

SpursWoman
07-17-2004, 11:45 PM
No, I don't need health insurance. I get mine through work, but the total cost is well more than $400/month. It's true that it's one of these co-pay plans.


Group insurance rates per person are also more expensive because there is generally no clause for pre-existing conditions or other physical health criteria (such as age, smoking habits, etc) to cover those 2 out of 30 that are very sick--during open enrollments. So they really have no control over who they are insuring, so their risk is a lot greater.


And spurster...when my company closed at the end of 2003 and I became unemployed, I found an excellent plan w/co-payments with a relatively low deductible through Unicare for less than $400/mo. But typically you won't be able to find those things online because your rates are dependant on basically a health survey.

SpursWoman
07-17-2004, 11:51 PM
And as a matter of fact, I did employee benefits where I had worked and the plan I found through Unicare was exactly the plan I had with my company (also Unicare) and the rate I was quoted was less than HALF of the rate the company was billed.



For me plus 2 kids the plan was $165/mo ... the Company I worked with was billed $369 for Employee + Child.

As an example. :)

SpursWoman
07-18-2004, 12:01 AM
The employer billing for family coverages was approximately $900, so I can only assume from the individual quote I got that it would be relatively consistent, and you could find a plan between $400-$500/mo.

And that includes preventative services. Major medical would be significantly less expensive.

MannyIsGod
07-18-2004, 12:46 AM
eat it, bitch.

wooo.

thanks sw.

MannyIsGod
07-18-2004, 12:48 AM
also, thats one reason those national averages are so skewed. it's because it doesn't take into consideration that the majority of people in this country have their coverage through group plans, which drive up the cost for the reasons that both I and SW mentioned.

If you take into consideration only the people that are self insured, it would be much less.

spurster
07-18-2004, 01:24 AM
Ok, suppose someone in my family has diabetes or cerebral palsy or cancer or AIDS or even just high cholesterol. Now how much will it cost? I would bet that all of your cheap plans are for single healthy young people. It's easy to insure healthy people.

MannyIsGod
07-18-2004, 02:23 AM
well, i did mention familys above.

so, i guess that would rule out the single part.

I acutally sold policies to people that could not recieve insurance elsewhere, so I know those exisit as well. They didn't cover as much, and weren't as cheap, but they were still a damn good alternative.

God, each time I rebuff something your ignorant ass says you simply come back with more crap, so I'm done with this. At least Despurado argued on an informed platform.



Yes, if you want other people to foot the bill for your illness, then socialized medicine is the route you should be looking at.

SpursWoman
07-18-2004, 02:42 AM
Ok, suppose someone in my family has diabetes or cerebral palsy or cancer or AIDS or even just high cholesterol. Now how much will it cost? I would bet that all of your cheap plans are for single healthy young people. It's easy to insure healthy people.


You mean finding individual coverage with pre-existing conditions? I've never had to inquire about something like that (fortunately)....but I'm curious enough to find out.

Pre-existing conditions in group policies are handled differently company to company, depending how they include them in their plan.

JohnnyMarzetti
07-18-2004, 11:03 AM
$400 a month is not cheap to me.

Hook Dem
07-18-2004, 11:33 PM
I'm with Manny on this one. He is right on.

ZielRocker
07-20-2004, 03:07 AM
One word. "Leaches" that will be the affordable treatment for the masses.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 03:48 AM
bump