<p>that’s exactly what i’m talking about… unfortunately that is a really really really common situation…</p>
<p>yorkyfan: I understand. However, let me ask you this question. If you don’t have a pre-esixting condition, have you thought of getting a very high deductible insurance? It is like self-insuring up to a limit, but prevent total financial ruins. My friend who retired at 50 has done this quite successfully with 3 kids (and when he retired his youngest was a toddler)</p>
<p>Simba, Individual Hi deductable health insurance costs the same each month as yorkyfan is already paying!!! How is she supposed to be able to afford that???</p>
<p>“In any case, we can’t afford $2700/month. And we are a middle class family and would not qualify for Medicaid.”</p>
<p>In my mind, this is exactly the kind of situation that needs to be addressed and in order to do so, we have to who people are in this situation and clean up fraud and make sure that people aren’t taking advantage of the system. I don’t think we can afford to just throw our arms out and say “coverage for everyone On Me!,” but we can make sure that coverage is available without sacrificing innovation and quality. But I do think that absent total destitution, individuals have to pay for their coverage because, like college, it is an individual’s responsibility. We pay about $862 per month and I find that more than fair and reasonable.</p>
<p>"I don’t think we can afford to just throw our arms out and say “coverage for everyone On Me!”</p>
<p>Actually, we can afford that EASIER and cheaper than we can the current system. We could cover absolutely everyone for not a single dime more than the current system - with its 46.5 uninsured, and 100 million intermittently insured, and waiting lists for cancer surgery longer than for elective surgery in Canada. But not with HillaryCare or ObamaCare.</p>
<p>"We could cover absolutely everyone for not a single dime more than the current system "</p>
<p>I’m not interested in that. I’d rather save the money, pay less taxes and have everyone take some responsibility for paying for their own coverage. How much that would cost individuals would, of course, vary, but I’m not interested in free coverage of everything for everybody.</p>
<p>There would be no “free coverage” - just as Social Security and Medicare are not free. I’m not quite sure where you get the idea that folks in a single-payor system get free care. In the CURRENT SYSTEM, they get free (and very expensive) care in emergency rooms. And you pay for it. Actually, under the CURRENT SYSTEM, you pay for it twice. You pay for the emergency room care through higher premiums in your health insurance, and you pay for it when folks don’t care for emergent conditions soon enough and end up on long-term SSI disability.</p>
<p>“There would be no “free coverage” - just as Social Security and Medicare are not free. I’m not quite sure where you get the idea that folks in a single-payor system get free care.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry Mini, I misunderstood what you were saying two posts ago and was responding to the erroneous understanding.</p>
<p>That’s fine. But take it one step further: a single-payor system would virtually eliminate the “free-loaders” (not that there are very many) that the current system enables.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely! And most of us are only a misfortune away from being in the scary circumstances described by yorkyfan. That’s why the current system has to change. The “I got mine, you get yours” way is working for fewer and fewer Americans. I use to be spooked by all the warnings of the dangers of “socialized medicine”, but no more. I’m not expecting a perfect solution. I am expecting some serious growing pains, but ultimately, I’m hopeful that a national health plan will be better than what we currently have.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I understand your philosophy, and I’m not about to argue it as a matter of values. But, as I’ve said before, I became a liberal not as a result of some political epiphany, but as a result of watching how the real world actually works, and how the actual consequences of different decisions actually pan out in real life. Under our current system, we’re not going to punish the children of the spendthrifts and ne’er-do-wells -we are going to provide them with the necessary medical services to save their lives and promote their health. We are a compassionate nation - we don’t just kick people to the curb because they (or their parents) made bad decisions.</p>
<p>So the actual issue is: what is the best way to deliver the universal health care that we’re actually already committed to, and are currently delivering (albeit in the least efficient and most expensive manner imaginable)? As it is, our system punishes the responsible and rewards the callous - the corporation with the best health care plan “loses” at the bottom line. People who suffer a lapse in coverage through unemployment then become uninsurable as to “pre-existing conditions” and face absolute financial ruin, given the “retail” cost of health care, regardless of how prudent they may have been.</p>
<p>The “philosophical” approach to the problem which you espouse may make sense on a theoretical level, but it’s an abject failure in the real world. Personally, I don’t care if my health care cost is funded through taxes, personal payments, employer deductions, or whatever - cost is cost. Whatever will actually work best in the real world is the system we should pursue - regardless of political/social/philosophical theories.</p>
<p>One way or the other you are paying for it. Even with employer sponsored plan you do pay. The employer portion is part of your total compensation package - it is just hidden.</p>
<p>“The “philosophical” approach to the problem which you espouse may make sense on a theoretical level, but it’s an abject failure in the real world. Personally, I don’t care if my health care cost is funded through taxes, personal payments, employer deductions, or whatever - cost is cost. Whatever will actually work best in the real world is the system we should pursue - regardless of political/social/philosophical theories.”</p>
<p>Believe it or not, Kluge I agree with a lot of what you said there. The only point I’m making (and it may have been obscured) is that no one should get a free ride. If healthcare is going to be universally provided, it should involve a universal contribution. I’m not sure how that should work (and neither is anyone else), but it shouldn’t be something in the order of welfare in New York where fraud was rampant. Middle class people like me shouldn’t have to pay a ridiculous percentage of our salaries. I’m about cost-effectiveness and, as always, respect for the fact that many of us earn our money through hard work and it is ours, not the government’s. As I’ve said before, I’m more sympathetic than one might think on this issue because in my community, we have 500,000 people and two hospitals, one of which is in bankruptcy. I hear (read) things like “oh we have to pay whatever it costs” and it makes me nuts. Fiscal responsibility is a good thing, not some sort of affliction of the soul.</p>
<p>For me this is a moral issue…what right do I have to good care just because I have insurance and can afford the co-pays and deductibles? Am I a superior human being for that financial good luck? I think not. All of the bureaucracy to manage all the systems and gateways and referrals and denials and claims eat up lots of the health care dollar, though one could argue those are jobs which otherwise would not exist. Somehow I think that would be anyone’s rationale for the system as it exists. </p>
<p>The free market society has additional encumbrance because of this insurance issue…who can risk their family’s safety and health to pursue new dreams and visions, create new businesses? Everyone I know has made career decisions based on this issue.</p>
<p>"For me this is a moral issue…what right do I have to good care just because I have insurance and can afford the co-pays and deductibles? "</p>
<p>For me it’s also a moral issue. What right does someone who can pay for some of their insurance/care have to expect others to pay for it? What right do elected officials/bureaucrats have to take taxpayer money with no accountability and bestow such care/insurance as they see fit?</p>
<p>The moral issue is that we all have a right to live and be healthy. Who pays for it is a pocketbook issue, not a moral issue. The issue of having a “right” not to pay for my neighbor’s care is a political decision, not a moral one. If I were religious I would think there would be accountability in the hereafter on this issue…at least as I understand the tenets of main stream religious doctrine.</p>
<p>“The moral issue is that we all have a right to live and be healthy. Who pays for it is a pocketbook issue, not a moral issue.”</p>
<p>Completely disagree. Taking something from someone else IS a moral issue. No one has a right to anyone else’s earnings. Remember, Lorelei, I’m very specifically talking about (a) people who can pay but don’t, and (b) bureaucratic waste and fraud.</p>
<p>“What right does someone who can pay for some of their insurance/care have to expect others to pay for it? What right do elected officials/bureaucrats have to take taxpayer money with no accountability and bestow such care/insurance as they see fit?”</p>
<p>A heck of a lot more right than private insurers and the corporate socialists do. </p>
<p>"If healthcare is going to be universally provided, it should involve a universal contribution. I’m not sure how that should work (and neither is anyone else), but it shouldn’t be something in the order of welfare in New York where fraud was rampant. Middle class people like me shouldn’t have to pay a ridiculous percentage of our salaries. I’m about cost-effectiveness…:</p>
<p>I agree with everything you say here. There SHOULD be a universal contribution - there isn’t now. There should be “cost-effectiveness” - there isn’t now, and the incentives in the system are to delay and deny care which, in the longer term, means the care that is received is effective, and more expensive, FOR EVERYONE.</p>
<p>correction to #238: “Somehow I think that would be anyone’s rationale for the system as it exists.” I intended to say “Somehow I think that would NOT be anyone’s rationale for the system as it exists.” Drat that 15 minute edit window!</p>
<p>The accountability issue is one that concerns me, also. We simply cannot afford a system like Social Security, whose funds are routinely siphoned off to make up for deficits elsewhere in the budget. It must be a transparent system that will insure that health care dollars go to health care and nothing else, not Iraq or whatever other pet project(s) that may rise to the forefront. I admit that the government does indeed have a horrific track record of administering social services, which is why I have arrived at the belief that we need a tax based alternative to the current system, kicking and screaming. That which we do, we must do with utmost care and planning, and in a non-partisan manner. </p>
<p>Yes, I know…pipe dream. We are all so screwed…:(</p>