Healthcare - happy with it or not?

Regarding Healthcare, I am

  • going to complain below, at length, about this poll and why I cannot/will not vote for the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reactions
33 4 0
#36
My one major complaint with our public health system is that dental care doesn't extend past 18.
It strikes me as being a part of healthcare that is just about as important as any other and yet if you can't afford it, (Which is understandable since dental care is REALLY expensive) you are screwed. Your only option is to get teeth pulled.
 
G

Greendog

#37
Gawd bless the NHS, not that I've ever used it to such great extent.

That said, I've got dental insurance because trying to find a dentist doing NHS work in England is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
 
Reactions
229 10 0
#38
Le Quack said:
Covar said:
and yet people want to essentially expand Medicare. The Federal Government can't even ensure that my Paychecks get to my house from my place of work and yet I'm supposed to want to trust them with my health?
@Covar, I think thats a poor argument. The government can't get paychecks to your house from work. Couldn't they just give you the check?
They will. I have direct deposit hopefully taking effect this week. Also how is it a poor argument? The Federal government can't even run the postal service, why should I want to trust them with my health?
 
Reactions
935 369 14
#39
Belgian. Most elaborate and most covering national health care in the world.
And I still have a private insurance on the side to provide for the *really* big stuff (losing legs and whatnot), but that's €3.90 a month, sinc,e you know, everything you can think up is covered by the state. It works fine, though it sure does eat up a lot of money.
 
Reactions
773 179 4
#40
Le Quack said:
Yeah, I think that medicare should take care of everyone in imminent danger. If you have a disease that can only be cured by an expensive surgery, or drug, I think the government should cough up for it. Promoting General Welfare.
Medicare already does it, it's slow, buried in massive paperwork, and doesn't work very well, but it's already in place and been there for years. It already does what you think it should do, but the program does not work well, is basically out of money (over budget) every year. Nothing that the government gets involved in ever comes in under the projected cost estimates, ever.

Why should I trust the health of people that I care for, much less someone that I don't even know, to the government? I don't see an upside to it at all, especially since there is already a program "doing" what it is claimed that this healthcare overhaul will do, covering the poor and uninsured.
 
Reactions
430 55 1
#41
Sparhawk said:
Le Quack said:
Yeah, I think that medicare should take care of everyone in imminent danger. If you have a disease that can only be cured by an expensive surgery, or drug, I think the government should cough up for it. Promoting General Welfare.
Medicare already does it, it's slow, buried in massive paperwork, and doesn't work very well, but it's already in place and been there for years. It already does what you think it should do, but the program does not work well, is basically out of money (over budget) every year. Nothing that the government gets involved in ever comes in under the projected cost estimates, ever.

Why should I trust the health of people that I care for, much less someone that I don't even know, to the government?
By the same question, why would you trust their health to a private company who's interest isn't the clients welfare, but to stocks?
 
Reactions
229 10 0
#42
Krisken said:
Sparhawk said:
Le Quack said:
Yeah, I think that medicare should take care of everyone in imminent danger. If you have a disease that can only be cured by an expensive surgery, or drug, I think the government should cough up for it. Promoting General Welfare.
Medicare already does it, it's slow, buried in massive paperwork, and doesn't work very well, but it's already in place and been there for years. It already does what you think it should do, but the program does not work well, is basically out of money (over budget) every year. Nothing that the government gets involved in ever comes in under the projected cost estimates, ever.

Why should I trust the health of people that I care for, much less someone that I don't even know, to the government?
By the same question, why would you trust their health to a private company who's interest isn't the clients welfare, but to stocks?
because their stocks are dependent on how their business is conducted. A government company isn't dependent on any measure of performance.
 
Reactions
430 55 1
#44
Covar said:
Krisken said:
Sparhawk said:
Le Quack said:
Yeah, I think that medicare should take care of everyone in imminent danger. If you have a disease that can only be cured by an expensive surgery, or drug, I think the government should cough up for it. Promoting General Welfare.
Medicare already does it, it's slow, buried in massive paperwork, and doesn't work very well, but it's already in place and been there for years. It already does what you think it should do, but the program does not work well, is basically out of money (over budget) every year. Nothing that the government gets involved in ever comes in under the projected cost estimates, ever.

Why should I trust the health of people that I care for, much less someone that I don't even know, to the government?
By the same question, why would you trust their health to a private company who's interest isn't the clients welfare, but to stocks?
because their stocks are dependent on how their business is conducted. A government company isn't dependent on any measure of performance.
For the most part, I've heard people are generally happy with medicare.

As for private companies, they are not really tied to good performance as far as profits go. They make more money the more people they deny coverage. Then their stock prices go up when they make money. People can't really go other places due to pre-existing condition clauses, so they are stuck with those companies or face the very real possibility of going into debt.

So I ask again, why is that more trustworthy?
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#45
Krisken said:
why would you trust their health to a private company who's interest isn't the clients welfare, but to stocks?
An insurance company that consistently go over budget will not exist for long. Customers and businesses won't choose insurance companies that have terrible coverage. Customers and businesses will sue insurance companies that do not meet their policy obligations.

The gov't, however, can go over budget, can force people to limit their choices, and cannot be sued. Further, the people can control the gov't in non-productive ways. Even though OCR systems can read the myraid of forms people turn in to the gov't, representatives have a cash incentive to keep jobs in their state, which means preventing technology from replacing people manually typing in forms. Backlogs fill up, and at the end of the day you have to wait 6 months for a passport. It's ludicrous.

There are many, many, many differences between private industry and gov't programs that make private industry often better, cheaper, faster.

The best places for gov't resources are where the private sector is unable or unwilling to meet a basic fundamental need. Poverty level healthcare, for example, is one of these areas.

Middle and upper class healthcare, however, is doing what its customers want it to. If healthcare is too expensive, then eventually some insurance company will come out with cheaper insurance for a different set of tradeoffs (for instance, limited liability for the doctor, so the doctor can charge less due to having to carry less insurance). People will choose what they want, though change will be slow.

-Adam
 
Reactions
430 55 1
#46
stienman said:
Krisken said:
why would you trust their health to a private company who's interest isn't the clients welfare, but to stocks?
An insurance company that consistently go over budget will not exist for long. Customers and businesses won't choose insurance companies that have terrible coverage. Customers and businesses will sue insurance companies that do not meet their policy obligations.

The gov't, however, can go over budget, can force people to limit their choices, and cannot be sued. Further, the people can control the gov't in non-productive ways. Even though OCR systems can read the myraid of forms people turn in to the gov't, representatives have a cash incentive to keep jobs in their state, which means preventing technology from replacing people manually typing in forms. Backlogs fill up, and at the end of the day you have to wait 6 months for a passport. It's ludicrous.

There are many, many, many differences between private industry and gov't programs that make private industry often better, cheaper, faster.

The best places for gov't resources are where the private sector is unable or unwilling to meet a basic fundamental need. Poverty level healthcare, for example, is one of these areas.

Middle and upper class healthcare, however, is doing what its customers want it to. If healthcare is too expensive, then eventually some insurance company will come out with cheaper insurance for a different set of tradeoffs (for instance, limited liability for the doctor, so the doctor can charge less due to having to carry less insurance). People will choose what they want, though change will be slow.

-Adam
"Better" is subjective. I can understand cheaper and faster though.
 
#47
Brazilian public healthcare is shite, and private charges too much, so I just set aside 500 every month in a savings account.

Although back in Malaysia and Singapore one could easily depend on public healthcare, as it was rather fast and efficient, and you´d get medication for free to boot.
 
W

Wasabi Poptart

#48
Very happy with what our insurance covers. Not happy about jumping through hoops to get the bills paid when the insurance company makes a mistake over & over again or fighting to get quality, consistent care for my kids.
 
#49
wait did the messiah hit and run a thread with rampant ignorance and moronic sentiments then never come back to defend his stupidity? holy shit! :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
L

Le Quack

#50
Covar said:
Le Quack said:
Covar said:
and yet people want to essentially expand Medicare. The Federal Government can't even ensure that my Paychecks get to my house from my place of work and yet I'm supposed to want to trust them with my health?
@Covar, I think thats a poor argument. The government can't get paychecks to your house from work. Couldn't they just give you the check?
They will. I have direct deposit hopefully taking effect this week. Also how is it a poor argument? The Federal government can't even run the postal service, why should I want to trust them with my health?
You don't have to; you can buy a private healthcare. But just because you don't want or need a federalized health care doesn't mean that someone else might NEED something.
 
Reactions
229 10 0
#51
Le Quack said:
Covar said:
[quote="Le Quack":1jolisn2]
Covar said:
and yet people want to essentially expand Medicare. The Federal Government can't even ensure that my Paychecks get to my house from my place of work and yet I'm supposed to want to trust them with my health?
@Covar, I think thats a poor argument. The government can't get paychecks to your house from work. Couldn't they just give you the check?
They will. I have direct deposit hopefully taking effect this week. Also how is it a poor argument? The Federal government can't even run the postal service, why should I want to trust them with my health?
You don't have to; you can buy a private healthcare. But just because you don't want or need a federalized health care doesn't mean that someone else might NEED something.[/quote:1jolisn2]

and my health care costs will nearly double due to having to support two plans.

Either the public option will be such shit that the private industry will still be able to compete (see UPS and FedEx) and shock, people who are currently paying for healthcare will see their costs rise drastically, and those stuck on the government option are no better off then they are now. Or the Public option will be effective enough that the Private industry will be unable to compete and we will have the single payer system that President Obama really wants.
 
L

lafftaff

#52
I'm very lucky when it comes to healthcare. I'm covered under my mother's insurance (which she gets through work) until I'm 25, no questions asked. It covers all my medical needs. I can spend up to a certain amount on dental and eye until I hae to start paying myself.

However, I have a family member who isn't so lucky. Her husband's insurance through work is is giving them hassle about cover her. She is pregnant and they consider it a pre-existing condition. But his insurance is too expensive for them too really afford anyways. They don't qualify for medicaid because they make too much, even though they can't afford pre-natal care. She's gotten some other discount plan but she's had to lie about being married to afford it.
To cover my ass though, this just one anecdote and doesn't give cause for a whole system change. And i'm not sure how much research she's done into other plans.

I think someone here mentioned it before, but that millions could be saved if all the insurance information could be streamlined. All companies would have to use the same codes and what not.

I'm done rambling and off to bed now.
 
Reactions
935 369 14
#54
Covar said:
Either the public option will be such shit that the private industry will still be able to compete (see UPS and FedEx) and shock, people who are currently paying for healthcare will see their costs rise drastically, and those stuck on the government option are no better off then they are now. Or the Public option will be effective enough that the Private industry will be unable to compete and we will have the single payer system that President Obama really wants.

There is so much wrong with this - even ignoring the fact that it's a logical fallacy - that I don't want to even begin to refute it.
 
Reactions
89 8 0
#55
It's mandatory here, automatically deducted from your salary every month, my program grants me medium level international coverage, it covered an eye exam when I went back to the US for a holiday.
 
Reactions
430 55 1
#56
lafftaff said:
I think someone here mentioned it before, but that millions could be saved if all the insurance information could be streamlined. All companies would have to use the same codes and what not.
As someone studying to be a Health Information Technician, yeah, this would be big savings.
 
L

Le Quack

#57
Covar said:
Le Quack said:
Covar said:
\"Le Quack\":akq30gwo said:
@Covar, I think thats a poor argument. The government can't get paychecks to your house from work. Couldn't they just give you the check?
They will. I have direct deposit hopefully taking effect this week. Also how is it a poor argument? The Federal government can't even run the postal service, why should I want to trust them with my health?
You don't have to; you can buy a private healthcare. But just because you don't want or need a federalized health care doesn't mean that someone else might NEED something.
and my health care costs will nearly double due to having to support two plans.

Either the public option will be such poop that the private industry will still be able to compete (see UPS and FedEx) and shock, people who are currently paying for healthcare will see their costs rise drastically, and those stuck on the government option are no better off then they are now. Or the Public option will be effective enough that the Private industry will be unable to compete and we will have the single payer system that President Obama really wants.[/quote:akq30gwo]

Prices can't get much higher man. Medical Bills account for 50% of all bankruptcies. If people already can't afford to keep themselves healthy, why shouldn't we allow the government to do some reforms?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/
 
Reactions
743 117 11
#58
Le Quack said:
Prices can't get much higher man. Medical Bills account for 50% of all bankruptcies. If people already can't afford to keep themselves healthy, why shouldn't we allow the government to do some reforms?
Coz the guberment iz evilz...
 
Reactions
142 22 1
#61
Charlie Dont Surf said:
Point of order - the reason the Postal Service is "failing" is because it's not designed as a for-profit enterprise.
And the internet took a crap ton of it's business away.
 
A

Alex B.

#62
I have Aetna through work. It's hard for me to judge it, because I almost never go to the doctor. I do, however, enjoy that the price goes up every year even though I never use it. I know there are various reasons for that, but none of them are because of anything I'm doing, which is annoying.

My dental plan I'm quite happy with. It covers all the regular expenses.

My eye care plan I'm not so happy with. I get one pair of glasses at discount, not free, every two years. Which means I just drop the plan on the off years, so I'm not sure who they think they're screwing here. And if I get glasses it won't cover contacts.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

#63
I'm a government employee covered by the government. I wins!

I've always been taken care of when I needed it, teeth and eyes included.
Oh. I forgot about that part when answering the poll. I was thinking just of the hospital care and doctor stuff. The Provincial helath care bit. I'm happy with that part

And yeah, my auto industry benefits are quite good, too. Not quite Mountie level, I'm sure, but I'm happy with this part, too.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

Point of order - the reason the Postal Service is "failing" is because it's not designed as a for-profit enterprise.
Indeed. It's a service.

Anyway. Just want to add one thing. If you think public healthcare can be a good thing but are afraid that the US government will fuck it up like the Postal Service or some other Federal bureaucracy you should be lobbying to create a public system paid for and run by the states or even the counties or cities.

Base it on the government services that work - or seem to work since no one complains about them much: The police forces and fire departments. Public healthcare doesn't have to be Federal Healthcare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top