Free from socialized health care

cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Free from socialized health care

Aren't we lucky in the US to be free from socialized health care?  Who wants to pay for other people's health care?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110621/ts_yblog_thelookout/man-robs-bank-to-get-medical-care-in-jail

Some people who need medical care but can't afford it go to the emergency room. Others just hope they'll get better. James Richard Verone robbed a bank.

Earlier this month, Verone (pictured), a 59-year-old convenience store clerk, walked into a Gaston, N.C., bank and handed the cashier a note demanding $1 and medical attention. Then he waited calmly for police to show up.

He's now in jail and has an appointment with a doctor this week.

Verone's problems started when he lost the job he'd held for 17 years as a Coca Cola deliveryman, amid the economic downturn. He found new work driving a truck, but it didn't last. Eventually, he took a part-time position at the convenience store.

But Verone's body wasn't up to it. The bending and lifting made his back ache. He had problems with his left foot, making him limp. He also suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis.

Then he noticed a protrusion on his chest. "The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept," Verone told the Gaston Gazette. "I kind of hit a brick wall with everything."

Verone knew he needed help--and he didn't want to be a burden on his sister and brothers. He applied for food stamps, but they weren't enough either.

So he hatched a plan. On June 9, he woke up, showered, ironed his shirt. He mailed a letter to the Gazette, listing the return address as the Gaston County Jail.

"When you receive this a bank robbery will have been committed by me," Verone wrote in the letter. "This robbery is being committed by me for one dollar. I am of sound mind but not so much sound body."

Then Verone hailed a cab to take him to the RBC Bank. Inside, he handed the teller his $1 robbery demand.

"I didn't have any fears," said Verone. "I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police."

The teller was so frightened that she had to be taken to the hospital to be checked out. Verone, meanwhile, was taken to jail, just as he'd planned it.

Because he only asked for $1, Verone was charged with larceny, not bank robbery. But he said that if his punishment isn't severe enough, he plans to tell the judge that he'll do it again. His $100,000 bond has been reduced to $2,000, but he says he doesn't plan to pay it.

In jail, Verone said he skips dinner to avoid too much contact with the other inmates. He's already seen some nurses and is scheduled to see a doctor on Friday. He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated. Then he plans to spend a few years in jail, before getting out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach.

Verone also presented the view that if the United States had a health-care system which offered people more government support, he wouldn't have had to make the choice he did.

"If you don't have your health you don't have anything," Verone said.

The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone's to get health insurance. But most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014.

As it is, Verone said he thinks he chose the best of a bunch of bad options. "I picked jail."

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well cj, I lost my job on Friday. So ObamaCare will kick in rig

 Well cj, I lost my job on Friday. So ObamaCare will kick in right around the time that COBRA stops?

 

I guess that I will just have to still being a conservative  

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Aren't we lucky in the US to be free from.. Health Care

  That was a sad story. He should not give up a meal to avoid the other inmates though. As my younger brother tells me " Yeah, but we're still number 1 " , it makes you wonder ?  Why is it that, this kind of delusion is so rampant in our society ?

Signature ? How ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I sincerely hope it is never

I sincerely hope it is never an issue for you.

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The sad thing is he probably

The sad thing is he probably doesn't even have the grace to be embarrassed. I wonder if he even attempted to seek out charity before running to mommy government? There are many health charities that help with these kinds of situations, and many hospitals have charitable funds themselves to cover essential surgeries. Around here the big one is http://www.surgeryonsunday.org I didn't notice where this guy was from, but I'd be willing to bet that there is some hospital or charity within a days drive that would have helped him. 

 

Seriously, we treat doctors like they are monsters that demand instant payment or else. They aren't. If you truly need a surgery or medical procedure, most doctors will do what they can to help if you simply ask. If they can't do anything themselves, they can probably at least point you in the right direction to a charity that can help. 

 

Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it. If you find yourself in this kind of situation, try asking nicely, you will have a lot more success. Because if you go up to someone and demand that they have to provide you medical care because you need it, well many of us are going to tell you to fuck off. I hope they throw him in the smallest, least furnished prison cell they can find. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sincere condolences. Both to

Sincere condolences. Both to Mr. Verone and AiGS. Here we have a saying, if we do nothing about our politicians, it will soon look like in America here.
In Europe people learned to look after another. In France they even learned to do some serious riots, if politicians propose a shitty law meant to take money away from people. The problem is, America is a relatively newly founded country and such countries still have a pioneer ethics of That's Your Fucking Problem. Americans don't find it diffcult to riot for Jesus or various anti-sexual obsessions, but rioting for human rights is harder than finding a nuke in Iraq desert. 

For the record, my politicians stole (among many other funds) 30 billion CZK meant for old-age pensions and so they seriously proposed to gradually rise the retirement age. Their proposal meant, that in the year 2055 the retirement age would be 70 years. I'd bet they'd love it, pay the taxes all your life and then die, never wanting them back. 

I am so dismayed with political insanity, that the news of riots, demonstrations and revolutions actually comfort me. The more, the northern, the better.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Instead

Beyond Saving wrote:
Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it.


To play the devil's advocate: why? What great moral imperative is there to seek non-governmental aid?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Well cj, I lost my job on Friday. So ObamaCare will kick in right around the time that COBRA stops? 

Doubtful, as the 'Mandatory Insurance Act' is being challenged and sabotaged at every turn. Quite justly I might add.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Beyond Saving

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it.

 

To play the devil's advocate: why? What great moral imperative is there to seek non-governmental aid?

 

Because by seeking non-governmental aid you are seeking help from people who are giving it willingly. By seeking government aid you are seeking funds that were taken from another person through force. It is the difference between a street bum with a sign asking for help and a mugger. To me, the former deserves help far more than the latter even if the former is a drug addict, alcoholic etc. and the latter is someone with some noble purpose for the money. The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if you need the money to save the cutest kid in the world, taking a gun and putting it to someones head for the purpose of stealing from them is wrong and I don't think a society that permits that kind of behavior on a mass scale is desirable. Rather than using force to collect money for whatever our noble causes are, we should use persuasion. Convince other people through words that our cause is noble rather than through the gun.

 

People who wouldn't imagine stealing money from another person are for some reason willing to do so when the money is taken by government officials, filtered through a few layers of bureaucrats and then handed to them. IMO, something that is wrong when done by an individual is just as wrong when done by a group and there is little difference between taking the money yourself and asking someone else to take it for you. I find this especially intriguing among social security recipients. I know some who absolutely refuse to accept money from their children/grand children when offered willingly, but when they imagine that some politician might change their social security payments they flip out. Who the hell do they think is paying for their social security? 

 

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It is possible

 

 

to have a healthcare system that supports people in need. When it comes to people getting themselves into gaol in order to get healthcare then there's a major problem with social infrastructure. I think that haves should help pay for have-nots when it comes to healthcare and even education. Fuck. It's just compulsory charity. When I think of all the other bullshit my taxes pay for, looking after sick folks seems the best part of it.

I can't quite understand why there's such a divide in US politics over medicare. There's moral consistency and then there's not. It seems straightforward enough. Some one correct me but isn't the US the world's largest giver away-er of tax payer's money as charity? Maybe those charity dollars should be spending some time at home?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: If

Beyond Saving wrote:

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

 

In most states, you have to be a minor child to qualify for medicaid.   They also usually have some slots for the permanently disabled.  This guy's health problems do not qualify as permanent disabilities and he is way too young for medicare.  Having just gone through a period where we were not disabled and now at least one of us is disabled.  6 months ago, we qualified for nothing - now, with the onset of my husband's health problems, we qualify for a lot more.  

Walk into a hospital with a bona fide emergency and they have to treat you.  This guy does not have any health problems that qualify as an emergency.  The lump in his chest?  Not until it is bleeding, exploding out of his chest, or he is screaming in pain is this an emergency.  (and I am not too sure about the screaming part - it may not qualify as an emergency since it probably isn't a heart attack)

So he really had fewer options than you think.  Charities are overwhelmed with children and the permanently disabled at the moment.  Someone who can hold a part time job, and take care of his own needs without assistance, will probably be refused care at the door.  I have seen a number of older men and women holding down temp part time jobs - and obviously are in a lot of pain while limping around the super store.  They probably don't have health care through the store, look to be too young to have medicare, don't make enough to pay for insurance out of pocket, and so must struggle - no hospital or doctor's office will touch them until they drop with something major.

I understand the guy being tired of hurting with no way he can see to get care for damned painful but not emergency health problems. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The sad

Beyond Saving wrote:

The sad thing is he probably doesn't even have the grace to be embarrassed. I wonder if he even attempted to seek out charity before running to mommy government? There are many health charities that help with these kinds of situations, and many hospitals have charitable funds themselves to cover essential surgeries. Around here the big one is http://www.surgeryonsunday.org I didn't notice where this guy was from, but I'd be willing to bet that there is some hospital or charity within a days drive that would have helped him. 

 

Seriously, we treat doctors like they are monsters that demand instant payment or else. They aren't. If you truly need a surgery or medical procedure, most doctors will do what they can to help if you simply ask. If they can't do anything themselves, they can probably at least point you in the right direction to a charity that can help. 

 

Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it. If you find yourself in this kind of situation, try asking nicely, you will have a lot more success. Because if you go up to someone and demand that they have to provide you medical care because you need it, well many of us are going to tell you to fuck off. I hope they throw him in the smallest, least furnished prison cell they can find. 

 

 

But it's too easy, on top of the healthcare he gets 3 squares and a cot a/c and cable television. The ubar liberals have made jail a nice place to be. If we still had chain gangs and shit we would have fewer criminals and it wouldn't cost the people nearly as much to run the prisons. Ridiculous system that needs reform really. Homeless people doing some small crime with the intent of getting to go to jail is not news at all and the only reason this made a story is because of Obama's healthcare plan.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:So he really had

cj wrote:

So he really had fewer options than you think.  Charities are overwhelmed with children and the permanently disabled at the moment. Someone who can hold a part time job, and take care of his own needs without assistance, will probably be refused care at the door.  I have seen a number of older men and women holding down temp part time jobs - and obviously are in a lot of pain while limping around the super store.  They probably don't have health care through the store, look to be too young to have medicare, don't make enough to pay for insurance out of pocket, and so must struggle - no hospital or doctor's office will touch them until they drop with something major.

Bullshit. I linked directly to one charity in my area that provides free surgery for adults with precisely these types of problems. I can also speak from experience that at least some hospitals will provide care without an immediate means of payment. The Mayo Clinic network for example. They treated me when I first got out of the military with severe pneumonia. I had no insurance (wonderful uncle sam cut me off), no job, no prospects for a job and precious little cash. My problems certainly weren't life threatening in any immediate sense and they kept me there for a week. I spent most of the next four years trying to pay that bill, and they worked with me. Was it because I am good looking and flirted with the receptionist? I doubt it. 

 

And if he can hold down a part time job then he can pay at least part of the bill can't he? I have never been to a doctor that required 100% payment up front. Usually they treat you then settle the bill afterwards and are always willing to set you up on a payment plan. If you go into a doctor and are honest about your financial situation, they will work with you. Most doctors want to help people, that is why they deal with all the crap they do in the medical profession. They aren't fucking money grubbing monsters that delight in seeing people in pain. If you put some effort into it you can find some charity or some doctor that will be willing to treat you. 

 

And while I am on the rant, if we fixed medicare, hospitals would have a ton more money to use for charity cases. Right now, medicare pays a small portion of the bill to the hospital and in many cases, the hospital actually loses money treating medicare patients. Now if everyone on medicare was flat broke and had no other options that would be one thing. But they aren't. Medicare goes to everyone without regard to financial status. There is NO reason why someone with a couple hundred grand in the bank should be on medicare. But they are, even if they don't want to be. Make medicare strictly into a welfare program for only those who truly have no other choice. Make people sell off all their assets before they can go on it. Then you could make the program itself solvent, and actually pay doctors for the work that they do. Freeing up more money in hospitals so that can provide better care and more charitable care. 

 

And another rant for the benefit of any young healthy people out there, getting health insurance through your job is a dumb idea. It might sound appealing, but after 20 years you lose your job you can be major league screwed if you are in poor health. You will find yourself in a position of needing a job to get coverage but perhaps not being healthy enough to work. 

 

Save yourself the headache, get your insurance privately with an individual policy. It might cost you a few more bucks up front, but it is worth every penny. I would recommend a high deductible HSA (health savings account) plan but Bamacare has basically destroyed those. Get a high deductible plan and save some money on the side. You will get the cheapest insurance rates and your insurance will be secure regardless of your employment situation as long as you continue making payments. Or better yet, just make enough money that you can pay cash for everything because at the end of the day, insurance will always cost more than the average persons medical expenses. Let that money work for you in your own investments rather than the insurance companies investments.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:But it's too

robj101 wrote:

But it's too easy, on top of the healthcare he gets 3 squares and a cot a/c and cable television. The ubar liberals have made jail a nice place to be. If we still had chain gangs and shit we would have fewer criminals and it wouldn't cost the people nearly as much to run the prisons. Ridiculous system that needs reform really. Homeless people doing some small crime with the intent of getting to go to jail is not news at all and the only reason this made a story is because of Obama's healthcare plan.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Bullshit. I linked directly to one charity in my area that provides free surgery for adults with precisely these types of problems.

 

I don't know what is available in his area, and neither do you.  I do know that some doctors will accept payment plans - my own doctor does.  But - it is only with people who are already her patients.  She does not accept just any body who walks in off the street and treat them for free or on a plan or at reduced cost.  I don't know of any doctor that will.  Yes, you can go to one of the free - or reduced cost - clinics if they are available in your area.  Again, none of us know what is available in his area, what he had tried to do to take care of himself prior to this incident, or anything else about him.  You prefer to make assumptions about all of that, I prefer to wait and see what additional information comes up.  We both know that if there is anything the least bit flaky about this guy, the news will be all over it and we will hear about it.

Pneumonia is life threatening and can be an emergency.  I don't know the details of your case, and I don't need to know.  I do know you don't have to be hospitalized if you have pneumonia, have a place to live, and can take care of yourself and take your meds as prescribed.  Been there, done that.  If you spent a week in the hospital, you got the care you needed when you needed it.  How you paid for it, or not, is what happened for you.  It is not the case that everyone will be in the same situation as you were.

We are back to - just how the heck do you buy personal health insurance if you are working part time for $8-10 an hour?  I agree that is a great way to take care of yourself if you can swing it.  But $10/hour  * 20 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = $10,400 per year gross.  And how are you supposed to keep fed and housed and as well as buy insurance on that?

Get a better paying job, you say.  I'd be willing to bet the guy would love to do that.  Him and me both.   

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Kapkao

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it.

 

To play the devil's advocate: why? What great moral imperative is there to seek non-governmental aid?

 

Because by seeking non-governmental aid you are seeking help from people who are giving it willingly. By seeking government aid you are seeking funds that were taken from another person through force. It is the difference between a street bum with a sign asking for help and a mugger. To me, the former deserves help far more than the latter even if the former is a drug addict, alcoholic etc. and the latter is someone with some noble purpose for the money. The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if you need the money to save the cutest kid in the world, taking a gun and putting it to someones head for the purpose of stealing from them is wrong and I don't think a society that permits that kind of behavior on a mass scale is desirable. Rather than using force to collect money for whatever our noble causes are, we should use persuasion. Convince other people through words that our cause is noble rather than through the gun.

 

People who wouldn't imagine stealing money from another person are for some reason willing to do so when the money is taken by government officials, filtered through a few layers of bureaucrats and then handed to them. IMO, something that is wrong when done by an individual is just as wrong when done by a group and there is little difference between taking the money yourself and asking someone else to take it for you. I find this especially intriguing among social security recipients. I know some who absolutely refuse to accept money from their children/grand children when offered willingly, but when they imagine that some politician might change their social security payments they flip out. Who the hell do they think is paying for their social security? 

 

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

Let's stick with socialized/privatized medicine.

There is a third option and a second means of emptying your pockets against your will; someone going to ER with an actual physical emergency yet no funds to pay for it. The emergency is taken care of (however temporarily), and the cost is transferred to the hospital bills of other patients (or their insurers) anyways. A bit like the examples of mugging you gave, no? Maybe the insurers still pay the hospital bills at the end of the day, but the added cost makes its way to bigger premiums eventually.

Also, because hospitals are obligated to treat medical emergencies, but not anything less critical than that, you have the added dilemma of preventative care being denied in favor of much more expensive emergency care. I couldn't say what the exact difference in price tag is, because normally I don't argue in favor of socialized medicine. As I said, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

 

Essentially, the current system robs people more than it would if it mandated preventative care for the poorly financed, and this is a major talking point for people in favor of socialized care.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond wrote:And while I am

Beyond wrote:
And while I am on the rant, if we fixed medicare, hospitals would have a ton more money to use for charity cases. Right now, medicare pays a small portion of the bill to the hospital and in many cases, the hospital actually loses money treating medicare patients. Now if everyone on medicare was flat broke and had no other options that would be one thing. But they aren't. Medicare goes to everyone without regard to financial status. There is NO reason why someone with a couple hundred grand in the bank should be on medicare. But they are, even if they don't want to be. Make medicare strictly into a welfare program for only those who truly have no other choice. Make people sell off all their assets before they can go on it. Then you could make the program itself solvent, and actually pay doctors for the work that they do. Freeing up more money in hospitals so that can provide better care and more charitable care.

Also, in favor of (more) privatized care... a person, on average, will get 5 times the benefit out of medicare that they have payed into it in the first place.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The US demonstrates the

The US demonstrates the folly of letting 'market forces' rule in health care - you spend up to twice per person on health than most other countries - more than twice my country, Australia - and still manage to achieve a lower life-expectancy at birth than typical 'socialized' nations, including mine.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: The US

BobSpence1 wrote:

The US demonstrates the folly of letting 'market forces' rule in health care - you spend up to twice per person on health than most other countries - more than twice my country, Australia - and still manage to achieve a lower life-expectancy at birth than typical 'socialized' nations, including mine.

 

This is my issue.  We are wasting money by insisting on private for profit health care.  Let alone the number of lives wasted.

Why is it okay to profit from people's health care?  All health organizations should be mandated non-profit.  All for profit corporations in the US must maximize stockholder returns by law.  A person's health care should not come after share dividends.

Why is it okay to take money for premiums and then deny care?  At least the new law ( "Obamacare" ) disallows the excuses of "pre-existing" conditions and life time caps. 

Preventive care and health education should come first, not last.  I keep seeing people go on about diet and exercise.  Given the food costs lately, a healthy diet costs about twice what we are getting in food stamps.  No, we are not eating steaks every night.  We eat lots of fruit and vegetables - fast food maybe once a month from what little cash we have to spend - whole grains - my husband needs a balanced diet between diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.  Our sodium intake is so low, the canned low salt soups taste too salty and so we usually make our own.  And so on.  Exercise?  With my arthritis, the doctor told me no running, no bicycling, no stairs, no walking.  And very little swimming.  And so what the heck kind of exercise am I supposed to do?  The osteopathic surgeon didn't have any suggestions.  I'd swim more, but even the public  pools charge money - 

There was a recent study - I will look it up for everyone if you insist - they compared the health of white middle aged Americans and British.  The British were in better health.  Even accounting for smoking and other unhealthy live style choices.  Regular preventive care your entire life - not just childhood and old age - significantly reduces health care costs.  Which reduces costs for everyone, because you will pay.  You will pay for other people's health care, like it or no, willing or not.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:    All health

cj wrote:

 

  All health organizations should be mandated non-profit.  

 

The majority of Hospitals in America are non-profit organizations. The for profit/non-profit distinction only dictates what they do with their extra money. So if a hospital makes 200 million on 190 million in expenses. A for profit hospital distributes some of that money to the shareholders and a non-profit hospital puts in back into the hospital. All the staff still get paid so in practice there is little difference between a for profit and a non-profit hospital. 

 

Also, the biggest culprit for health care costs are the insurance companies, then lack of preventative medicine.  Listen to what Beyond Saving said, get a high deductible personal insurance. Doctors aren't assholes, they'd rather treat you than refuse you. The other problem is that as a whole, our nation doesn't give a shit about preventative health care. 1/3 of americans are obese, 1/3 are overweight, there is no way our health care costs are going to come down unless we actually start caring about our health. 

Example, our family of 6 pays 270 per month but we have a high deductible.

My co-worker has 3 family members and pays 460 per month but has a lower deductible. In the long run (if you are healthy) the plan with the higher deductible is better. 

Insurance for one person should not cost more than 100 dollars a month and if you are paying more than that you should probably aim for a plan with a higher deductible and lower monthly payments. 

I work in a physicians office and deal with insurance companies everyday and let me tell you, it's a bitch. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Let's stick

Kapkao wrote:

Let's stick with socialized/privatized medicine.

There is a third option and a second means of emptying your pockets against your will; someone going to ER with an actual physical emergency yet no funds to pay for it. The emergency is taken care of (however temporarily), and the cost is transferred to the hospital bills of other patients (or their insurers) anyways. A bit like the examples of mugging you gave, no? Maybe the insurers still pay the hospital bills at the end of the day, but the added cost makes its way to bigger premiums eventually.

Also, because hospitals are obligated to treat medical emergencies, but not anything less critical than that, you have the added dilemma of preventative care being denied in favor of much more expensive emergency care. I couldn't say what the exact difference in price tag is, because normally I don't argue in favor of socialized medicine. As I said, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

 

Essentially, the current system robs people more than it would if it mandated preventative care for the poorly financed, and this is a major talking point for people in favor of socialized care.

Hence why I choose to exercise my freedom to not buy health insurance. I pay for my expenses with cash and go directly to a small practice doctor for most of my needs. If we gave hospitals more freedom to actually pursue patients legally to get at least some payment, it would improve things a little, but by far the largest culprit of unpaid medical bills is medicare. Get the old folks to pay for their own medical care and health insurance rates crash. Until medicare is reformed in some sensible way, meaningful reductions in health care costs will be impossible.

 

Also there is the little detail that the health insurance market is hardly free in many states. It is extremely highly regulated and some states only have a handful of insurers that have government approval. Allow people to buy any health insurance plan from any company and would make things much more competitive, which means lower rates. 

 

 

About the whole "preventative care" issue- if you want it go get it. All you have to do is pay for it. Generally speaking, money isn't the issue that prevents people from getting preventative care. It isn't that expensive, it is certainly cheaper than cell phones, internet and cable tv which virtually every American has. Choose your own priorities. I don't think government needs to be involved in making those decisions for us. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:cj wrote: 

lalib wrote:

cj wrote:
 

  All health organizations should be mandated non-profit.  

 The majority of Hospitals in America are non-profit organizations. The for profit/non-profit distinction only dictates what they do with their extra money. So if a hospital makes 200 million on 190 million in expenses. A for profit hospital distributes some of that money to the shareholders and a non-profit hospital puts in back into the hospital. All the staff still get paid so in practice there is little difference between a for profit and a non-profit hospital. 

 Also, the biggest culprit for health care costs are the insurance companies, then lack of preventative medicine.  Listen to what Beyond Saving said, get a high deductible personal insurance. Doctors aren't assholes, they'd rather treat you than refuse you. The other problem is that as a whole, our nation doesn't give a shit about preventative health care. 1/3 of americans are obese, 1/3 are overweight, there is no way our health care costs are going to come down unless we actually start caring about our health. 

Example, our family of 6 pays 270 per month but we have a high deductible.

My co-worker has 3 family members and pays 460 per month but has a lower deductible. In the long run (if you are healthy) the plan with the higher deductible is better. 

Insurance for one person should not cost more than 100 dollars a month and if you are paying more than that you should probably aim for a plan with a higher deductible and lower monthly payments. 

I work in a physicians office and deal with insurance companies everyday and let me tell you, it's a bitch. 

 

When I said 'all', I meant most especially health insurance.

Reality - for just me, the least expensive listed on ehealthinsurance.com is $142 per month, office visits not covered, $10,000 deductible, 40% coinsurance.  Would you happen to know of a less expensive plan?  While I'm enrolled in college, I get student insurance for not much.  But that plan is not available unless you are a student - which the guy in the article was not.  Also, where is he going to get the $10,000 deductible if he is making 10-20,000 per year working part time?

If I were purchasing insurance through my employer, I would pay less.  But I am not employed, so I don't have that option available.  I would love to be employed at a job with benefits and I'll bet the guy in the article would also like to have his old job back with the benefits.  The part time job he had at the convenience store was not contributing to his health insurance costs - want to bet?

My doctor is a wonderful person and is charging me nothing - zero, zip, nada, $0.00 - for office visits at the moment.  But we have a 9 year history.  And she has costs as well - I feel guilty I can't pay.  And there is no way I can get lab work done for free or low cost unless I am hospitalized. 

It's wonderful when you have a job that has benefits, when you earn enough money you can pay your own way.  But don't blame someone for getting old and getting laid off through no fault of their own.  You think you can find a job when you are almost 60?  Try it sometime.  My last job interview lasted 20 minutes - great resume, good interviewing skills, nice rapport with the people - no, thanks, we hired someone else.  I knew it was over five seconds after I walked in the room - when the two of them looked at me, looked at each other and then asked soft questions just long enough to be polite.  And so I couldn't sue for age discrimination.  They didn't know how safe they were - I don't have the $5,000 retainer fee for a lawyer, either.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:lalib wrote:cj

cj wrote:

lalib wrote:

cj wrote:
 

  All health organizations should be mandated non-profit.  

 The majority of Hospitals in America are non-profit organizations. The for profit/non-profit distinction only dictates what they do with their extra money. So if a hospital makes 200 million on 190 million in expenses. A for profit hospital distributes some of that money to the shareholders and a non-profit hospital puts in back into the hospital. All the staff still get paid so in practice there is little difference between a for profit and a non-profit hospital. 

 Also, the biggest culprit for health care costs are the insurance companies, then lack of preventative medicine.  Listen to what Beyond Saving said, get a high deductible personal insurance. Doctors aren't assholes, they'd rather treat you than refuse you. The other problem is that as a whole, our nation doesn't give a shit about preventative health care. 1/3 of americans are obese, 1/3 are overweight, there is no way our health care costs are going to come down unless we actually start caring about our health. 

Example, our family of 6 pays 270 per month but we have a high deductible.

My co-worker has 3 family members and pays 460 per month but has a lower deductible. In the long run (if you are healthy) the plan with the higher deductible is better. 

Insurance for one person should not cost more than 100 dollars a month and if you are paying more than that you should probably aim for a plan with a higher deductible and lower monthly payments. 

I work in a physicians office and deal with insurance companies everyday and let me tell you, it's a bitch. 

 

When I said 'all', I meant most especially health insurance.

Reality - for just me, the least expensive listed on ehealthinsurance.com is $142 per month, office visits not covered, $10,000 deductible, 40% coinsurance.  Would you happen to know of a less expensive plan?  While I'm enrolled in college, I get student insurance for not much.  But that plan is not available unless you are a student - which the guy in the article was not.  Also, where is he going to get the $10,000 deductible if he is making 10-20,000 per year working part time?

If I were purchasing insurance through my employer, I would pay less.  But I am not employed, so I don't have that option available.  I would love to be employed at a job with benefits and I'll bet the guy in the article would also like to have his old job back with the benefits.  The part time job he had at the convenience store was not contributing to his health insurance costs - want to bet?

My doctor is a wonderful person and is charging me nothing - zero, zip, nada, $0.00 - for office visits at the moment.  But we have a 9 year history.  And she has costs as well - I feel guilty I can't pay.  And there is no way I can get lab work done for free or low cost unless I am hospitalized. 

It's wonderful when you have a job that has benefits, when you earn enough money you can pay your own way.  But don't blame someone for getting old and getting laid off through no fault of their own.  You think you can find a job when you are almost 60?  Try it sometime.  My last job interview lasted 20 minutes - great resume, good interviewing skills, nice rapport with the people - no, thanks, we hired someone else.  I knew it was over five seconds after I walked in the room - when the two of them looked at me, looked at each other and then asked soft questions just long enough to be polite.  And so I couldn't sue for age discrimination.  They didn't know how safe they were - I don't have the $5,000 retainer fee for a lawyer, either.

 

 

When you are in poor health it is too late to purchase health INSURANCE, just like if you crash your car it is too late, if your house is flooded or on fire it is too late. Insurance requires that you prepare in advance, that is why it is called insurance, you are insuring your finances against a potentially large bill. With health insurance, your best bet is to get a good plan when you are young and keep your plan unless you are directly swapping from one insurance company to the other. If you failed to plan in advance, I don't see how that is anything other than your own fault. This guy worked a good job for 17 years, but apparently failed to make any plan for the future. Sad, but he was irresponsible and now he is paying the consequences. Hopefully, a few younger people can learn the hard lesson the easy way. 

 

And what strikes me most is that all of these healthcare discussions what we are talking about is purely financial. There is not a widespread problem with doctors refusing to treat patients for financial reasons. I looked, and I couldn't find any news stories about all the people being thrown on the streets to die. I found plenty bitching about evil insurance companies "denying healthcare", but even when an insurance company turns you down you can pay for it yourself, with charity money or work out a deal with the doctor. So someone fails to have a plan to pay for their medical expenses and has to rely on charity coverage and maybe declare bankruptcy- so what? They get the treatment they need, they continue to survive and hopefully they learned their lesson or people around them learn and plan for the future. 

 

By the way, it turns out there are a few charities in his area

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/nc/ncnews/hospitals-openness-charity-care-urged

http://www.unchealthcare.org/site/healthpatientcare/patient/other/financial.htm

took me 20 seconds on google. I imagine that if I was in his situation I would be motivated to search even harder. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Reality - for

cj wrote:

 

Reality - for just me, the least expensive listed on ehealthinsurance.com is $142 per month, office visits not covered, $10,000 deductible, 40% coinsurance.  Would you happen to know of a less expensive plan?  While I'm enrolled in college, I get student insurance for not much.  But that plan is not available unless you are a student - which the guy in the article was not.  Also, where is he going to get the $10,000 deductible if he is making 10-20,000 per year working part time?

Just to illustrate how competition helps, Ohio is actually pretty good in this respect compared to most states, if you lived in Ohio $133/month would get you a $5000 deductible with 20% copay. A $10000 deductible with 20% copay would run you $100/month. Those prices are for an almost 60 female. 

 

Funny that the idea of lifting the government imposed restriction on dealing insurance policies across state lines was excluded from the thousands of pages that is bamacare even though everyone said it was a good idea....

 

But yeah, the older you get the more expensive health insurance is going to be because you are far more likely to have serious and expensive health problems than someone in their 20's. That is why it is best to plan in advance and keep your health insurance independent of your work. An awful lot of the baby boomer generation is in the same boat because they either never thought about their health or they got their insurance through their job and thought that was good enough. Now they are leaving/being laid off of their jobs or the companies are cutting health insurance to save costs and people are finding themselves in their 50's with no insurance.

 

Well now they are going to have to pay for their healthcare or rely on others to pay for it. You can either come at us with a gun and demand we pay for it, or you can ask nicely. Ultimately, using force is going to lead to resentment, economic damage and most likely lead to us sooner or later saying "you lived a good life, take a pain pill grandma" And honestly, if you are willing to use force to take from people, you deserve it when the day comes that those people say enough, you will take no more from me. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Funny

Beyond Saving wrote:

Funny that the idea of lifting the government imposed restriction on dealing insurance policies across state lines was excluded from the thousands of pages that is bamacare even though everyone said it was a good idea....

 

Thank the health insurance industry lobbyists.  I don't know why it is restricted in the first place.  Probably some actuarial table somewhere showed someone where they thought they could save a penny or two.  Some of it is the way the states have their Insurance Commission policies set up.  Or it could have been because some politician or their buddy was defrauded once.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

But yeah, the older you get the more expensive health insurance is going to be because you are far more likely to have serious and expensive health problems than someone in their 20's. That is why it is best to plan in advance and keep your health insurance independent of your work. An awful lot of the baby boomer generation is in the same boat because they either never thought about their health or they got their insurance through their job and thought that was good enough. Now they are leaving/being laid off of their jobs or the companies are cutting health insurance to save costs and people are finding themselves in their 50's with no insurance.

 

Well now they are going to have to pay for their healthcare or rely on others to pay for it. You can either come at us with a gun and demand we pay for it, or you can ask nicely. Ultimately, using force is going to lead to resentment, economic damage and most likely lead to us sooner or later saying "you lived a good life, take a pain pill grandma" And honestly, if you are willing to use force to take from people, you deserve it when the day comes that those people say enough, you will take no more from me. 

 

Don't lay it all on me, pookie.  Old people are not the only ones who get catastrophically ill, and old people are way down the actuarial tables when it comes to disabling/life-threatening injuries.  And babies are some of the most expensive when it comes to buying malpractice insurance.  Pat yourself on the back for being childless.

You are paying.  You will continue to pay.  If not in taxes, then in some other fashion.  Health costs affect all of us - rich and poor.  The cost of treating those who can not pay, if not covered in taxes, will be covered in higher costs to the consumer.  Just like shoplifting is covered by higher prices in the stores.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Because by seeking non-governmental aid you are seeking help from people who are giving it willingly. By seeking government aid you are seeking funds that were taken from another person through force.

False Dichotomy, you're excluding the, not insignificant by far, group of those who willingly pay social taxes in the good faith that they will be well used to their benefit by their elective representatives.

And I wonder why it is that socialism is only institution you're inclined to whip with this "forced" stone when the essence of capitalism is precisely the same, to force premiums out of others that fundamentally do not and can not benefit them in any way. It's the very definition of a profit motive, to take, in the absolute literal sense, more than is owed from, generally, unwilling benefactors.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Hence

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hence why I choose to exercise my freedom to not buy health insurance. I pay for my expenses with cash and go directly to a small practice doctor for most of my needs. If we gave hospitals more freedom to actually pursue patients legally to get at least some payment, it would improve things a little, but by far the largest culprit of unpaid medical bills is medicare. Get the old folks to pay for their own medical care and health insurance rates crash. Until medicare is reformed in some sensible way, meaningful reductions in health care costs will be impossible.

You and me both, I imagine, are waiting for the medicare bubble to explode.

There was one 70ish guy who said that particular program was like a ticking timebomb. This person had every excuse to act like a greedy, unrepentant asshole with regards to his government entitlements. In addition to his age, he was a cancer survivor.

 

Quote:
About the whole "preventative care" issue- if you want it go get it. All you have to do is pay for it. Generally speaking, money isn't the issue that prevents people from getting preventative care. It isn't that expensive, it is certainly cheaper than cell phones, internet and cable tv which virtually every American has. Choose your own priorities. I don't think government needs to be involved in making those decisions for us.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for actual numbers, if not a cite, at the very least. And I don't mean cherry-picked data, either; for example, listing the cost of treating a dental abscess that has reached the heart or the brain vs. the treatment of the initial abscess, but not those costs of other diseases -like the various cancer types, for example.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The US

BobSpence1 wrote:

The US demonstrates the folly of letting 'market forces' rule in health care - you spend up to twice per person on health than most other countries - more than twice my country, Australia - and still manage to achieve a lower life-expectancy at birth than typical 'socialized' nations, including mine.

Does this include the 'social democracies' that have made extreme cuts to their welfare -including medical welfare-  benefits during this recession? What about the UK? I don't think they've  managed their Medicine all that well since the days of Clement Attlee.

Or does the "typical 'socialized' nation" -as I suspect- only take into account Germany, France, Lowlands Countries, and a handful of Scandinavian countries? Do any of your remarks take the recession into account?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: I'm afraid I'm

Kapkao wrote:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for actual numbers, if not a cite, at the very least. And I don't mean cherry-picked data, either; for example, listing the cost of treating a dental abscess that has reached the heart or the brain vs. the treatment of the initial abscess, but not those costs of other diseases -like the various cancer types, for example.

 

Here is one web site - http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Blood-Tests/Health-Wellness-Panels.htm

Depends on how healthy you want to be and what you are testing for.  The general ones that cost hundreds but check on a lot of things at one time are what your doctor usually requests for a yearly physical after age 50.  They all seem to believe the warranty on your body runs out about then.

Here is one with the cost of x-rays.  If the guy has back/hip/knee/foot pain, arthritis is a safe bet.  And the doctor would request one or more x-ray for each area.  To repeat what the site says, these costs do not include the radiologist's fees for reading and reporting on the x-rays.  I once had my back x-rayed and paid out of pocket about 7 years ago.  $155 up front.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_do_x-rays_cost

If you have arthritis, the doctor will likely also request an MRI. 

http://blog.remakehealth.com/blog_Healthcare_Consumers-0/bid/6658/How-much-does-an-MRI-scan-cost

Notice, they tried negotiating lower prices and it took 25 calls, about 3 hours on the phone over a 3 day period.  For one 10% reduction, one 20% reduction, and one offer to allow you to pay half up front and the other half later.  No one had MRIs for less than $700 even with discounts.

If you are diabetic?  That is hysterical.  Yes, you can use diet and exercise to attempt to control the disease.  For some unfortunate souls, one of whom I'm married to, this doesn't work.  He is not overweight and walks at least a mile every day.  As I mentioned earlier, we eat healthy and have for years.  Yet, to control the disease, he has to medicate. 

The blood test meters are given away by the manufacturers.  Found a website where if you can afford to sign up for their auto ship program, test strips run just under $30 for 50.  If you test twice a day, that is less than one month's supply.  If you go to Walgreens - from personal experience - they are over $65 for 50.  Needles for insulin - $25-30 for a box of 100.  You also need to buy alcohol wipes - or alcohol and gauze or cotton balls - not much, but just one more thing to keep track of.

You will also need regular A1C blood tests.  This measures the long term effectiveness of your blood sugar management.  Not terribly expensive if done without other tests.

Getting old sucks.  And there is damn little you can do to avoid the ills that go with.  If you didn't choose your parents to be people free from ills and aches when they aged, you can pretty much forget all the advice about how to take care of yourself when young to avoid your parent's diseases.  I know you don't want to hear this, I sure thought I could avoid them all when I was younger.  Seems to me, the best you can seem to get to is a little less debilitated than your parents were/are.

Rejuv treatments - hurry up with the research already, guys.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I didn't address

Sorry, I didn't address dental costs.  I would think in your example, the cost of treating an abcessed tooth before you hit the emergency room with sepcis, would be way less expensive.

Looking up dental care, I couldn't find any that would treat major dental emergencies of the uninsured and broke locally except the Multnomah County Health Department.  They interview you and charge you what they think you can pay.  Been there, done that, too.

Plenty of low cost clinics and dental schools in a larger city for everyday dental care.  Probably best to take advantage of their $5 cleaning and x-rays - my dentist I used to go to charged $75 for the same service. 

Rural areas are another ball of wax entirely.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Reality - for

cj wrote:

 

Reality - for just me, the least expensive listed on ehealthinsurance.com is $142 per month, office visits not covered, $10,000 deductible, 40% coinsurance.  Would you happen to know of a less expensive plan?  While I'm enrolled in college, I get student insurance for not much.  But that plan is not available unless you are a student - which the guy in the article was not.  Also, where is he going to get the $10,000 deductible if he is making 10-20,000 per year working part time?

 

 

On eheathinsurance.comI found for myself (20 year old full time college student) $40 a month with 5500 deductible, 0% coinsurance, and everything else was 0% after I met my deductible. Unlimited lifetime maximum.

For someone who is 60, I found 162 a month (sucks I know) but after a 5500 deductible everything is 0%. Here is the link, it is for Missouri though, I don't know where you are. 

162 a month + 5500 = 7444 per year for all your health insurance if you need more than 5500 in health insurance. 

I really feel for you cj and the bit about diabetes is the one place where insurance fails. Unfortunately, there are millions and millions of people with diabetes and other chronic conditions that they had no choice in having and our health care system treats them very poorly. 

Best of luck to you in finding a job. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Beyond Saving

Eloise wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Because by seeking non-governmental aid you are seeking help from people who are giving it willingly. By seeking government aid you are seeking funds that were taken from another person through force.

False Dichotomy, you're excluding the, not insignificant by far, group of those who willingly pay social taxes in the good faith that they will be well used to their benefit by their elective representatives.

And I wonder why it is that socialism is only institution you're inclined to whip with this "forced" stone when the essence of capitalism is precisely the same, to force premiums out of others that fundamentally do not and can not benefit them in any way. It's the very definition of a profit motive, to take, in the absolute literal sense, more than is owed from, generally, unwilling benefactors.

 

When I conduct an economic transaction, exactly who is unwilling? Say, if I choose to pay $1.25 for a cup of coffee. Obviously, they are making a large percentage of profit on that coffee. But I am willing to pay the price. They are not putting a gun to my head and I can either go without coffee or go purchase it elsewhere. One party is not coming out ahead of another- both parties have different items and are trading them. In my case, the $1.25 at that moment is less important to me than drinking coffee. For the gas station, the $1.25 is more important than the coffee. Both of us leave the exchange believing we got a fair deal because we have different priorities/desires. There is no force or threat of force in the transaction, it is strictly voluntary for all parties involved.

 

When the government taxes, it is not optional. You can't pick and choose which programs your money pays for, you can't decide how much to pay and you can't refuse to pay, at least not without being thrown in jail. The gas station can't throw me in jail if I decide not to buy their coffee. If you happen to believe that everything the government does is wonderful and are happy to pay for it, I want to smoke whatever your having. IME, those who are "happy" to pay their taxes, don't pay much. And why wouldn't you be happy if you believed you got a lot more than your moneys worth in return? If you can pay $1 and get free healthcare, I'm sure you would be very happy. That doesn't change the fact that you are using government power to take money from someone else to pay for it and the person who is paying for everyone else probably isn't that happy about it. At least, I'm not.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Don't lay it all on

cj wrote:

Don't lay it all on me, pookie.  Old people are not the only ones who get catastrophically ill, and old people are way down the actuarial tables when it comes to disabling/life-threatening injuries.  And babies are some of the most expensive when it comes to buying malpractice insurance.  Pat yourself on the back for being childless.

You are paying.  You will continue to pay.  If not in taxes, then in some other fashion.  Health costs affect all of us - rich and poor.  The cost of treating those who can not pay, if not covered in taxes, will be covered in higher costs to the consumer.  Just like shoplifting is covered by higher prices in the stores.

 

The reason I focused on old people is because that is currently the demographic that pays the least because of medicare. When the government skips out on paying a medicare bill, the hospital simply eats the cost and has very little recourse. If I were to go to a hospital and skip out on the bill they can at least hurt my credit rating, annoy me with phone calls and letters and ultimately sue me to at least attempt to recover some of those costs.

 

Your comparison with shoplifting is actually a really good one. And we should treat people who skip out on hospital bills just like we would treat people who get caught stealing from a grocery store or skipping out on any other bill for services received. IMO, hospitals should be more proactive in suing people who skip out on their bills. 

 

Of course, there is going to be a certain segment of society that simply won't pay and hospitals might have to build that into their prices, but as a consumer, I can choose which hospital I want to go to. No doubt, some are better and more efficient than others at collecting money from deadbeats, so they will have lower costs. Just like some grocery stores have lower costs than others. Again, we are talking about a voluntary transaction- the hospital gives me a price and I decide whether or not I am willing to pay it. Quite frankly, I don't care if the price is inflated because of people stealing, the doctors being greedy or the cost of electricity. As a consumer, I generally don't worry about those details. My main concern is whether or not I am willing to pay $X for the services I receive and whether or not a competitor can give me comparable services at a lower cost. Just like you probably don't think about all the costs that are built into running a grocery store. You simply decide whether or not you are willing to pay the price for your goods. 

 

That is massively different from a system where the government taxes and uses that money to pay for peoples care, especially when it starts paying for the care of people who could otherwise pay for at least part of it themselves.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: When I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

When I conduct an economic transaction, exactly who is unwilling? Say, if I choose to pay $1.25 for a cup of coffee. Obviously, they are making a large percentage of profit on that coffee. But I am willing to pay the price. They are not putting a gun to my head and I can either go without coffee or go purchase it elsewhere.

In theory that is what is happening, but in the real world it is far more often a case of paying the same large percentage profit or going without full stop. Other alternatives range from extremely scarce to completely non-existent, heavy on the non-existent.

It's easy to trivialise the argument with coffee as an example but its not really as unimportant as that seems because in a system ruled by market forces all things are like that coffee, including basic essentials, including essential foods, clothing and shelter. And when the essentials of life come with the take it or leave it choice you may as well have a gun to that persons head as you tell them how much more you demand in profit in addition to the true value of the exchange.

The point being that as much as you might want to believe consumers choice will drive the price, as theory implies, in reality consumers can be and virtually always are in todays world, robbed of that power by the multitude forms of price fixing which have evolved out of it (many of these are inadvertant but for all practical purposes a fixed price nonetheless) and then they are unwilling but compelled to submit to no less a force than any tax law can wield.

Beyond Saving wrote:

One party is not coming out ahead of another- both parties have different items and are trading them.

Absolutely untrue, the very definition of profit demands that one party come out ahead of the other.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 There is no force or threat of force in the transaction, it is strictly voluntary for all parties involved.

Because it is COFFEE!!! For heavens sake, drop the straw man and take on a real issue, like where someones actual livelihood or better still LIFE depends on the transaction. Then tell me there is no force acting on the consumer.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:In theory that

Eloise wrote:

In theory that is what is happening, but in the real world it is far more often a case of paying the same large percentage profit or going without full stop. Other alternatives range from extremely scarce to completely non-existent, heavy on the non-existent.

It's easy to trivialise the argument with coffee as an example but its not really as unimportant as that seems because in a system ruled by market forces all things are like that coffee, including basic essentials, including essential foods, clothing and shelter. And when the essentials of life come with the take it or leave it choice you may as well have a gun to that persons head as you tell them how much more you demand in profit in addition to the true value of the exchange.

It doesn't matter if it is coffee or something else. I chose coffee because I happened to be drinking some at the time I made the post. Fill in your product. Even for essentials like food, market competition exists. I don't know where you live, but I am willing to bet that you have more than one grocery store to choose from. Clothing and shelter? There are choices all over the place that range from the extremely cheap to the exorbitantly expensive. 

 

Eloise wrote:

The point being that as much as you might want to believe consumers choice will drive the price, as theory implies, in reality consumers can be and virtually always are in todays world, robbed of that power by the multitude forms of price fixing which have evolved out of it (many of these are inadvertant but for all practical purposes a fixed price nonetheless) and then they are unwilling but compelled to submit to no less a force than any tax law can wield.

Name one product where I don't have a choice. 

 

Eloise wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

One party is not coming out ahead of another- both parties have different items and are trading them.

Absolutely untrue, the very definition of profit demands that one party come out ahead of the other.

 

Who came out ahead in the coffee example? This is where you are fundamentally wrong. You assume there has to be a winner and a loser. At the most basic level, there isn't. When the government uses force, I can point to specific people who are having something that is theirs taken from them against their will under the threat of jail and ultimately, a gun. With any economic transaction, you can't do the same. 

 

Even though I'm pretty certain you don't even understand the basic issue of coffee, lets address the heart attack. So you go into a hospital and will die unless several people do something to save you. Now they can probably charge you whatever price they want because if you want to live, you are probably willing to pay every penny you have. Suppose they are complete assholes, and charge $200k for procedures that might usually sell for $50K. In economics, this is what we call inelastic demand, because no matter what the price is, it will have little to no effect on demand.

 

Now you have four options.

1. You can pay the $200k and live

2 You can refuse to pay and die

3. You can have someone with a gun force the nurses and doctors to save your life

4. You can use a gun to go take money from some third person to pay for the 200k.

I think we can agree that option 2 isn't really an option for anyone who wants to live. I frown on option 3 and 4 because you are using force. You are using violence to force another person to do something for you or to take from another person. You are no longer talking about an economic transaction where one party trades their labor for the labor of another party at a mutually agreed price.

 

Now you are arguing that option 1 is the same type of violence because when your life is in danger, you will pay any price to save it. But the doctors and the nurses are not forcing you to do anything for them. You are the one who is reliant on their efforts. You are the one demanding that they perform labor for you. The only thing they are demanding is that you pay them for their labor. The fact that their labor is so important to you that you are willing to essentially write a blank check is irrelevant. If it was my life, I would gladly pay whatever they asked, even if it meant I had to give up everything I own because my life is more important to me. That labor that saves my life, is more important to me than all the other labor I could pay for with that money. Now having been overcharged, I would probably try to go elsewhere when I need future services. I might even badmouth them a little bit. But  it can hardly be considered violence used against me. I was the one making the demand of their labor.

 

In reality, hospitals don't take advantage of these types of situations. In the real world, doctors and nurses are pretty nice people. They treat you in emergency situations regardless of your ability to pay. Right now, it is codified in law, but I am willing to bet that even without the law, hospitals would treat true emergencies and sort out the money afterwards.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Sorry, I didn't

cj wrote:

Sorry, I didn't address dental costs.  I would think in your example, the cost of treating an abcessed tooth before you hit the emergency room with sepcis, would be way less expensive.

Looking up dental care, I couldn't find any that would treat major dental emergencies of the uninsured and broke locally except the Multnomah County Health Department.  They interview you and charge you what they think you can pay.  Been there, done that, too.

Plenty of low cost clinics and dental schools in a larger city for everyday dental care.  Probably best to take advantage of their $5 cleaning and x-rays - my dentist I used to go to charged $75 for the same service. 

Rural areas are another ball of wax entirely.

Though it's a minor hangup, I wasn't talking about sepsis, only about abscesses that tunnel their way towards some place vital, as they occasionally do if left untreated.

About your previous post: your links and points made only mentions the lab costs used in diagnoses. One link you gave almost certainly doesn't deal with actual medical illness. I'm asking for the costs of treatment, not costs of analysis and diagnoses.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:When the

Beyond Saving wrote:

When the government taxes, it is not optional. You can't pick and choose which programs your money pays for, you can't decide how much to pay and you can't refuse to pay, at least not without being thrown in jail. The gas station can't throw me in jail if I decide not to buy their coffee. If you happen to believe that everything the government does is wonderful and are happy to pay for it, I want to smoke whatever your having.

Signature worthy material, that is. Though I thought in all fairness I should point out that eloise's tax dollars goes to a different government than ours, if you aren't already of aware of that.

 

 

Quote:
IME, those who are "happy" to pay their taxes, don't pay much. And why wouldn't you be happy if you believed you got a lot more than your moneys worth in return? If you can pay $1 and get free healthcare, I'm sure you would be very happy. That doesn't change the fact that you are using government power to take money from someone else to pay for it and the person who is paying for everyone else probably isn't that happy about it. At least, I'm not.

Than you've never heard of a limousine (neo)liberal...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BS -

There was a story on Yahoo this last night about the worst states to retire to for taxes.  I realize you aren't that old, but most of the taxes mentioned would apply to you as well.

I thought looking at the lowest tax rates would be interesting:

http://content.kiplinger.com/slideshow/TaxFriendlyStatesRetirees/1.html#top

Maybe you should move - you might feel less put upon.  Seriously, from what I have read, the total tax burden varies a lot from state to state.  Oregon is #4 on their list for worse, that is, higher taxes.  And you know, I don't mind at all.  Even when I am working and paying taxes.  The estate tax doesn't impact us.  When my mom died, my inheritance was getting to pay for her cremation.  No one else had any money.  Though someone else picked up her last bill or two.  I don't expect it to be any different for any other relative the rest of the family might think I'm responsible for.

You are still comparing apples and oranges.  The cost of care for heart disease varies according to treatment given.  There is really very little difference in cost if you compare similar therapies.  And you don't have choices if you have insurance.  You go to a provider within their network, and you pay your co-pays and deductibles.  Or you go to a provider out of network and pay more.  If it is an emergency, and the ambulance is there to collect your body, you go to the hospital that is accepting emergency patients at that time.  We once had to call an ambulance for my husband, and he went to a hospital that was out of network because no hospital in network was accepting patients.  Busy weekend.  And it was many calls over many months to straighten it out with the insurance after the fact.

If you call because of chest pains, you go where they will accept you.  You don't get to pick and choose where.  It doesn't matter if - according to any previous research you have made - this is the most expensive care in town.  If that is what is available, that is where you will go.  You may be able to refuse and get a lift from a friend to a lower cost hospital, but you may not be admitted.  If they are full, they don't have to take you.

You keep talking like health care is all a matter of choice.  But it isn't - unless you can afford to pay cash up front.  The rest of us take what we can get.

It would be a marvelous utopia if everyone could pay as much as required.  You are smoking some kind of dope if you truly believe this will ever be reality.

And Kap-didn't you once mention you are not self supporting?  GMAFB

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:When the


Beyond Saving wrote:

When the government taxes, it is not optional. You can't pick and choose which programs your money pays for, you can't decide how much to pay and you can't refuse to pay, at least not without being thrown in jail. The gas station can't throw me in jail if I decide not to buy their coffee.

Just aside, you do realise that the point of paying tax dollars is to recieve services, don't you? Its here almost as though you're saying that taxes equate definitionally to demanding something for nothing*, is the irony of such thinking lost on you forever?

A trader can have you penalised if you refuse payment for their services, in exactly the same sense, on principle**, that the government would do the same to you for not paying your taxes. Fundamentally there is no difference in how and on what grounds a trader and a government will use legal recourse to claim money from you, that is my point.

Additionally, it is patently false to say you "can't" pick and choose which programs your money pays for, yes even in an ideally working democracy your powers are limited to a single vote in favour of or against a package of programs but this is not the same as having no choice at all.

 

*Definition of PROFIT fro Merriam-Webster (NB the highlighted section)

1 : a valuable return : gain 2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit 

**(I do realise that there is a hefty degree of barminess going on with taxes in todays world, but for arguments sake lets say both competing systems are in their ideal state and compare them on principles)

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It

Beyond Saving wrote:

It doesn't matter if it is coffee or something else. I chose coffee because I happened to be drinking some at the time I made the post. Fill in your product. Even for essentials like food, market competition exists. I don't know where you live, but I am willing to bet that you have more than one grocery store to choose from.

Well I live in a different country to you, just out of interest.

Also interestingly enough I actually do live in a town with only one grocery store at the moment,  though I concede it is rare for that to be the case, it doesn't matter because it wasn't my point. You seem to have missed where I said that competition between sellers is moot, regardless of their number.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Clothing and shelter? There are choices all over the place that range from the extremely cheap to the exorbitantly expensive. 

 

It is kind of a local issue but where I am ALL (literally all) shelter is exorbitantly expensive right now and I am saying this happens to be a reality. No amount of denial and argument from theory will change the reality that the majority of your grievances about social taxation apply just a readily and aptly to the system you revere as it's superior.

 

 

 

 

 

Eloise wrote:

 

Now you are arguing that option 1 is the same type of violence because when your life is in danger, you will pay any price to save it. But the doctors and the nurses are not forcing you to do anything for them. You are the one who is reliant on their efforts. You are the one demanding that they perform labor for you. The only thing they are demanding is that you pay them for their labor. The fact that their labor is so important to you that you are willing to essentially write a blank check is irrelevant. If it was my life, I would gladly pay whatever they asked, even if it meant I had to give up everything I own because my life is more important to me. That labor that saves my life, is more important to me than all the other labor I could pay for with that money. Now having been overcharged, I would probably try to go elsewhere when I need future services. I might even badmouth them a little bit. But  it can hardly be considered violence used against me. I was the one making the demand of their labor.

 

No you were arguing that the consumer is under no pressure and is free to make rational, educated choices without constraint, exercising their buying power with clinical disregard at every turn, in short you made the argument most capitalists make, relegate the decisions of a persons life and livelihood to the triviality of mathematical objects in a vacuum and ask cynically "so how can it be hard?".

Your argument summarily dismissed that any hardship or pressure existed in financial decisions of a market consumer, but the truth is taxes are not the only squeeze, they are not the only type of unjust financial burden a person can be compelled to bear against their will or better judgement.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Just aside, you

Eloise wrote:

Just aside, you do realise that the point of paying tax dollars is to recieve services, don't you? Its here almost as though you're saying that taxes equate definitionally to demanding something for nothing*, is the irony of such thinking lost on you forever?

Your not paying tax dollars to receive services if you are not the person who is receiving said services. My gripe is about paying tax dollars for services that are solely received by other people. For example, I have no complaints about the gas tax because the funds collected through the gas tax are used to build and maintain the roads and the amount of gas tax I pay is directly related to how much I use that service. If all government taxes were structured as a fee for use system, I would be very satisfied. But when it comes to healthcare issues, we are not talking about fee for use. We are talking very specifically about taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another group simply because the receiving group is larger. That is wrong.

 

Now with all these social programs medicare, social security etc. I have said before, and will say again, I would be perfectly happy if participation was voluntary. If I could choose not to participate and therefore, not receive the benefits or pay the taxes, I would have no problems with the programs. They aren't voluntary and I have to pay for them regardless of whether or not I will receive any benefit from them at all.  

 

Eloise wrote:

A trader can have you penalised if you refuse payment for their services, in exactly the same sense, on principle**, that the government would do the same to you for not paying your taxes. Fundamentally there is no difference in how and on what grounds a trader and a government will use legal recourse to claim money from you, that is my point.

No, it isn't the same. The trader cannot force you to take their product. Yes, if you steal from someone you will face legal penalties, but from any trader, you are free to walk away having purchased nothing. With the government, you are not free to walk away. It takes your money whether you like it or not and whether you want the services or not. 

 

Eloise wrote:

Additionally, it is patently false to say you "can't" pick and choose which programs your money pays for, yes even in an ideally working democracy your powers are limited to a single vote in favour of or against a package of programs but this is not the same as having no choice at all.

Except that I will never be in the majority. It is all fine and dandy that I can vote, that doesn't change the problem of a majority of people would like to take from me and they vote for politicians that want to take from me. The only permanent solution I can imagine to the problem of the majority simply stealing from the minority is an agreement that we won't use government force to steal from one another. As you can see, I am in a distinct minority in wanting that type of agreement, but I will continue to push the issue as long as I can and maybe eventually a majority of people will see that theft through government is as wrong as direct theft.  

 

Eloise wrote:

*Definition of PROFIT fro Merriam-Webster (NB the highlighted section)

1 : a valuable return : gain 2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit 

Yes, profit is the money you make over your investment. You are ignoring the step where you do something to make the good worth more. It is exceedingly rare to find a situation where you can purchase a good and turn around and immediately sell it for a profit. Usually you have to improve it (as in a factory that buys steel and makes it into a car), transport it somewhere where it is more valuable (like a grocer), or store it until it becomes more valuable. So it does not translate directly into your initial claim that one side is necessarily taking advantage of or getting the better of the other.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:There was a story

cj wrote:

There was a story on Yahoo this last night about the worst states to retire to for taxes.  I realize you aren't that old, but most of the taxes mentioned would apply to you as well.

I thought looking at the lowest tax rates would be interesting:

http://content.kiplinger.com/slideshow/TaxFriendlyStatesRetirees/1.html#top

Maybe you should move - you might feel less put upon. 

Except the big problem is the federal government. State taxes simply aren't that much in comparison and change rather quickly. The states that are best today could easily fall way down the list in 10 years. Some states are doomed like California which is where I would really want to live. I do love Wyoming though.... 

 

cj wrote:

You are still comparing apples and oranges.  The cost of care for heart disease varies according to treatment given.  There is really very little difference in cost if you compare similar therapies.  And you don't have choices if you have insurance.  You go to a provider within their network, and you pay your co-pays and deductibles.  Or you go to a provider out of network and pay more.  If it is an emergency, and the ambulance is there to collect your body, you go to the hospital that is accepting emergency patients at that time.  We once had to call an ambulance for my husband, and he went to a hospital that was out of network because no hospital in network was accepting patients.  Busy weekend.  And it was many calls over many months to straighten it out with the insurance after the fact.

 

You have a choice when you purchase your insurance. Granted, it is not a free market since insurance policies and companies are heavily regulated state by state, so the options you have in your state may be limited. But, if the market were free you could choose a plan with a network, one without or a hybrid depending on your needs and available funds. It is up to you to understand your insurers policies and decide which insurer to provide your business to. Also, I will admit that in an emergency you don't have a lot of choice. You go wherever you can ASAP without regard to money. I'm not convinced that hospitals really take advantage of people in those situations by intentionally overcharging to be assholes. But nothing stops you from going somewhere else after the immediate emergency has passed and it is often the follow up and therapy that gets super expensive, not the initial emergency room visit. 

 

And when it comes to therapy, you might be surprised at the difference in rates. I can't speak for heart disease because I am fortunate enough not to have any issues with that yet, but for things like office visits, stitches, a broken leg, x-rays, and pneumonia the rates can vary quite a bit. It is often the stupid little stuff that hospitals try to overcharge for.

 

cj wrote:
 

You keep talking like health care is all a matter of choice.  But it isn't - unless you can afford to pay cash up front.  The rest of us take what we can get.

It would be a marvelous utopia if everyone could pay as much as required.  You are smoking some kind of dope if you truly believe this will ever be reality.

It is a matter of choice as much as anything else you purchase is. Sure, the more cash you have the better. If you go into a grocery store with a ton of cash you can buy lobster, caviar and steak- if your funds are limited you probably head for the mac & cheese aisle. But imagining that by having the government control everything is going to allow everyone to go eat lobster every night is a utopia. 

 

The best way to handle your healthcare is to plan well in advance. Start a plan when you are young and healthy so that you have a structure in place to take care of you when you start experiencing problems. Unfortunately, many Americans are not good at planning for the future. But I don't see why people who were/are responsible and take steps to take care of themselves should be punished while those who failed to do so line up for free care like it is their birthright. If you find yourself in a situation where you are relying on the charity of others, it sucks. That doesn't make it right for you to demand from others and to use government as a tool to take from them. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The best

Beyond Saving wrote:

The best way to handle your healthcare is to plan well in advance. Start a plan when you are young and healthy so that you have a structure in place to take care of you when you start experiencing problems. Unfortunately, many Americans are not good at planning for the future. But I don't see why people who were/are responsible and take steps to take care of themselves should be punished while those who failed to do so line up for free care like it is their birthright. If you find yourself in a situation where you are relying on the charity of others, it sucks. That doesn't make it right for you to demand from others and to use government as a tool to take from them. 

 

I keep telling you and you keep not hearing.  You will pay - you will pay in higher costs from your provider(s).  All those people who get emergency care but can't pay - your costs just jumped.  All those people who could have prevented an emergency room visit if they had been able to afford preventive care - your costs just jumped.  Epidemics, drug resistant bacteria - your costs just jumped.   And the last also affect your personal health risks.  You pay.

You will pay in higher costs for higher numbers of prison inmates - not only because of a few people like this guy, but also because when people can't get the care they need, some of them wind up in jail.  Some because they haven't been taking meds or going to therapy sessions and so they act out.  Some because hopelessness is associated with increased crime and domestic violence.

Willing or not, you pay.  Taxes or higher costs, you pay.  If you don't like it, you might want to research why you are paying what you are and how to reduce provider's costs so your costs are reduced.

It is very similar to you paying for shoplifting.  You pay higher costs for goods because of the store's losses and you pay higher taxes to put people in jail.  You pay.  You want to reduce what you pay, you need to look at what are the real causes and not what you think the causes might be.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Well cj, I lost my job on Friday. So ObamaCare will kick in right around the time that COBRA stops?

 

I guess that I will just have to still being a conservative  

Gene, I really don't know how to convince you that it is within the best interest of those at the top to start giving a shit. I do get tired of the false analogy that saying the pay gap and cost of living are lopsided is somehow a call to end the free market. WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET, WE HAVE A FREE FOR ALL MARKET

We have a monopoly of power by one class and they are paying off both parties to look the other way while wages stagnate and jobs disappear. I really am not going to shed any tears for big oil or GE when they are the biggest welfare queens and tax dodgers.

The bullshit that the left wants a government run economy is just that, BULLSHIT.

If those at the top continue to chose not to care then they cannot bitch when the other two classes turn to the government for help. Getting more people off the government dime, which sounds nice on paper, cannot happen with the pay gap, cost of living exploding. If the top only gives a shit about profit, and continues to drive down wages, we will end up with the same slave labor as India and China.

I'd like to think our country is better than that and doesn't have to resort to slave wages to complete globally.

My mom, for example, just got a vaccine shot that cost 270 dollars. You've got to be joking. I have no doubt that most of that cost was sheer profit and marketing, and very little to do with actual cost. I am sick of health being exploited as if it should be a luxury. What fucking right does some dickhead in a cubical have in holding my mother's health hostage to cost?

If you really buy into this crap, then DONT send one fucking dime to a charity to a third world country. Health should not be dependent on ability to pay. There are some things in the market that should be socialized. Military, police, courts are all socialized.

My co-worker got his house robbed. The suspect stole his TV, and 700 dollars he had saved to move into a bigger apartment. He is poor, like me. So if we use the free market and privatize everything as a solution, this poor guy should be told by the police "fuck you, you are poor".

Lucky for him a neighborhood watch caught the guy breaking into another house IN A POOR NEIGHBORHOOD, went to the suspects house and found his stuff. If everything were private, then he should be fucked because he is poor and cannot pay out of pocket for private security.

If you think he has the right, which you do, to be protected and call the police like any class, why the hell do you, or anyone think poor people should be screwed when it comes to their health?

I would suggest if you want less people to depend on the emergency room, then the cost of health care and insurance CANNOT always be about the shareholders or CEOs.

I don't have health care and I'll tell you right now, I will not give one ratts ass about what any right winger thinks if I use the emergency room, as long as their attitude is "fuck you, you're poor".

We DONT do that with fire or police nor should we do that with health care. I'd like to think the country I love is better than "let them eat cake". I would like to think my country has more compassion than that.

I am so fucking tired of the bullshit argument that suggesting some things should be socialized that means that I want to rid the country of an open market. NO it is NOT EITHER OR.

Our police, milititary, fire, water, post office AND SOCIAL SECURITY, are all forms of socialism. I doubt seriously you will give up your SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK.

I love the fact that I can buy a burger one day, and a pizza the next. I like the fact that I can watch the NFL. I do not want to rid society of private business. I simply want my country to FUCKING CARE about the growing disparity between the highest and lowest paid, and health care cost is causing a huge problem because it is profit driven.

When even my middle class co-workers whose husbands own their own business are one illness away from disaster and don't have health care themselves, there is no excuse. Most people in this country ARE NOT LAZY and would if they could do as much on their own as they can.

The "poor me" victim status of the uber rich 2% is being exposed for the bullshit lie it is. They are simply using blackmail and fear mongering to maintain their monopoly. I will say this, the poor and middle class DO need to stand up to them.

If the rich would care about the inequity then they could get more people off the government dime. But as long as they ask for welfare themselves in the form of tax cuts and tax funding, without addressing the living standard of those who work for them, they have no one to blame but themselves and should not bitch at any backlash.

The economic right is not going to get away with their bullshit lies anymore. They are not going to starve the middle class and poor into submission. Saying that their is more than one class in society is not a call for the end of the open market. It is bullshit to continue to claim that.

I really am tired of this bullshit. If anyone thinks that health care should be dependent on the ability to pay, they are a monster to me and lack any conscious. I do not think you are a monster. I do not think if you in real life, were an EMT and came across a poor person bleeding to death or suffering a heart attack, you'd let them die because they couldn't pay. So stop acting like people like me are out to get you just because we think heath care should not be profit driven.

The closest I come to health care being profit driven should be diversified and AT A MINIMUM have a public option. Just like the post office won't put UPS out of business. There absolutely no matter what has to be something our society can come up with so that people can get health care no matter what class they are in. But I am not going to trust the industry that paid of lawmakers who created these high prices and monopolies.

I am sick of it being driven solely by the foxes guarding the hen house and Wall Street.

But after what I have seen over the past 30 years of de regulation in big business, I am not going to trust them blindly. They have proven to me that monopolies and profit, and not the public, or living standards, are what they focus on.

Answers, it is as simple as this. If those at the top want government off their backs, they have the power to do it. But they cannot bitch when they don't give a shit, or show they give a shit about the cost of living for the other two classes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We had far less of a pay gap

We had far less of a pay gap and far less poverty and far less people on the government dime when we had a higher tax rate on the rich.

Seriously, anyone who owns a mansion can suck my dick if all they give a shit about is themselves. I am not impressed with McDonalds creating more poverty by providing 50 thousand minimum wage jobs. And why? So their shareholders and CEOs can get rich while the public gets fatter?

Like I said, business is one thing, I will never be against private business ownership. I will always be against monopolies and exploitation.

WE DONT NEED MORE McDonalds or Wal Marts. We need more manufacturing, more innovation, more reasonable higher education costs and less of a pay gap. And most certainly we don't need our high health care costs.

A slash and burn economy is what we have. One that does not care about what it does to make a buck. I care, and I hope someday you see what is going on.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Perfect example,If no

Perfect example,

If no regulation is good, then the 32 babies who died as a result of faulty design of cribs that are now being recalled BY GOVERNMENT FORCE, those babies deserved to die because, who cares, as long as the company making them can make a buck.

I am quite sure the parents of these dead babies are thrilled with the free market.

Same shit with cars and their history. It took death for government to mandate seat belts and crumple zones, which wouldn't have taken place if the car companies who fought those regulations always got their way.

Car companies didn't go out of business because of regulation, on the other hand, they almost went out of business because of their own demand of deregulation in which the tax payers bailed them out.

I am happy seat belts are mandated and I am damned glad someone surprises a pizza joint to make sure it isn't rat infested. And I am glad these crib makers are being held accountable before more babies die.

The point is that we don't have to exploit others to have an open market and we should want some laws to protect us from bad players. Business without ethics is exploitation. Business with a conscious builds.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And Kap-didn't you

cj wrote:
And Kap-didn't you once mention you are not self supporting?  GMAFB

Not any more, and I will give no such break. But I thought you said you were against pigeon-holing. Out of curiosity, what is this in reference to anyways?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Answers in

Brian37 wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Well cj, I lost my job on Friday. So ObamaCare will kick in right around the time that COBRA stops?

 

I guess that I will just have to still being a conservative  

Gene, I really don't know how to convince you that it is within the best interest of those at the top to start giving a shit. I do get tired of the false analogy that saying the pay gap and cost of living are lopsided is somehow a call to end the free market. WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET, WE HAVE A FREE F... (zZZZzzZZzz)

Another thread in the process of being hijacked by another pointless 'speaking truth to power' tirade.


 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Perfect

Brian37 wrote:

Perfect example,

If no regulation is good, then the 32 babies who died as a result of faulty design of cribs that are now being recalled BY GOVERNMENT FORCE, those babies deserved to die because, who cares, as long as the company making them can make a buck.

I am quite sure the parents of these dead babies are thrilled with the free market.

Those parents were free to choose whatever crib they deemed proper.

Brian37 wrote:
Same shit with cars and their history. It took death for government to mandate seat belts and crumple zones, which wouldn't have taken place if the car companies who fought those regulations always got their way.

Incorrect.

Seat belts, and crash rating minimums were mandated by the government for the same reason that speed limits were mandated; because of payouts by insurance companies for deaths.

Brian37 wrote:
Car companies didn't go out of business because of regulation, on the other hand, they almost went out of business because of their own demand of deregulation in which the tax payers bailed them out.

Ya, uh huh, and unions had nothing to do with affecting the 'bottom line' of the car companies?

Puhleeze...

Brian37 wrote:
  And I am glad these crib makers are being held accountable before more babies die.

They didn't murder any babies. There was a flaw in the design. Hindsight is 20/20.

Find some gross negligence, and then you might have a case to string them up from the nearest tree.

Are we going to start holding the makers of pavement accountable for not making the coefficient of friction of the pavement high enough to prevent cars from skidding off roads in the rain?

What about all the babies that die in those instances?

Maybe go after the tire manufacturers?

Oh yeah, that's right. Soft compound tires with much higher grip are available from tire companies. Except they cost 3-4 times as much.

Damn free market capitalists!...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:And

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
And Kap-didn't you once mention you are not self supporting?  GMAFB

Not any more, and I will give no such break. But I thought you said you were against pigeon-holing. Out of curiosity, what is this in reference to anyways?

 

Apologies, I must need a hormone adjustment - just ignore.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The US

BobSpence1 wrote:

The US demonstrates the folly of letting 'market forces' rule in health care - you spend up to twice per person on health than most other countries - more than twice my country, Australia - and still manage to achieve a lower life-expectancy at birth than typical 'socialized' nations, including mine.

 

 

 

this is ridiculous im sorry, to say we have some sort of free market in healthcare is beyond bizarre, about 50 cents of every dollar in healthcare comes from the govt, how on earth can someone even claim this to be remotely free market?

 

what we have is corporate medicine, where large business and govt are in bed together, hell pfizer and pharma were big supporters of obamacare

what we need is an actual free market in healthcare, we need to fix the ridiculous tax structure, ease licensing regulations, and probably the biggest thing that could be done would be to fix monetary policy and stop price inflation

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul