<p>"We simply, as a society, haven’t made accommodations to account for those major, important changes. "</p>
<p>This is not just a problem here, it is something faced in all developed countries.</p>
<p>
I hadn’t thought of that but, of course, you are right. We just need more jobs all around. It is a mess.</p>
<p>Boy, World War II really changed the Western world big-time, didn’t it. “Baby boomers” is not just a U.S. phenomenon; it’s a phenomenon in all the European countries as well.</p>
<p>By coincidence, I ran into an acquaintance in Dunkin Donuts this morning when I was getting iced tea. I hadn’t seen her in over a year, so we sat down to catch up. One of the first things she told me was that she’d gone back to teaching in a culinary school for one reason only: to get health insurance. Her husband died several years ago, and she and her two now college-aged daughters had insurance through COBRA for 3 years, then were cut off. She hates the teaching, the hours are horrible, the schedule is unpredictable, and it interferes with her main work, catering (her own business). She said that one year from yesterday she will be able to get insurance through the new health care law, and she is counting the days.</p>
<p>VeryHappy, can you expand on your intriguing comment?</p>
<p>And, NY, it takes that job from someone who really needs/wants it and perpetuates the cycle. So sad that these are the methods we have to turn to in this country.</p>
<p>“People who have a great deal at the moment can still care about the people who don’t. “I got mine, so screw you” is not an attitude that builds a strong country in the long term. I don’t want to live in a libertarian paradise where people who can’t afford health care die of untreated high blood pressure. We’re talking about preventable suffering and death here”</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who is satisfied with what they and their children have that are saying, “I got mine, so screw you.” Who is saying that? That is ridiculous. Many of those people are paying plenty of money to support others who don’t have the same health care. Do you think they’re not?</p>
<p>The thought that everyone MUST go under the same system and there is no other way…to force everyone out of their plan and under some vast government plan, because some people don’t have decent healthcare, now THAT is selfish. Ie, “I don’t have mine, it’s not fair, so screw you, you’re going to pay for mine, and lose yours?”</p>
<p>Why don’t we just force all private/great public schools to shut down because it’s not fair that some kids get an excellent education, and others don’t. Those selfish parents. Really, I hate the emotional silliness of these kind of arguments. There has to be logical solutions to these problems, where people have options, and everyone is covered.</p>
<p>There has to be a far better way to keep the positives of our healthcare system and improve access for everyone and lower cost. I don’t think throwing away the entire system we have now is the answer. There is a reason that so many people come to the US for medical treatment.</p>
<p>busdriver, you are making a very common mistake, confusing our “health care” system with our “health insurance” system. Throwing away our private health insurance system, and replacing it with more efficient single-payer coverage, would not affect our excellent health care system.</p>
<p>romani, many people who are working past retirement age are doing so out of necessity. And some who could afford to retire continue working because they love their work. I don’t think these people should be forced to stop working. But some people would prefer to retire early, in their 50’s, but don’t because they need health insurance for themselves and their families. If the new healthcare law makes it possible for people in that category to retire, that will be good for everyone.</p>
<p>I understand what you mean, NYMom. I am mixing things around by being vague.</p>
<p>I suspect that with the latest in health care laws, companies will start shedding their health care insurance for workers. Health care plans will go the way of pension plans. But there will be no corresponding increase in salary. I don’t know that will be a positive for workers or taxpayers…people whose plans were once paid for by their companies will now be paid for by the pool of taxpayers who still pay taxes.</p>
<p>"busdriver, you are making a very common mistake, confusing our “health care” system with our “health insurance” system. Throwing away our private health insurance system, and replacing it with more efficient single-payer coverage, would not affect our excellent health care system. "</p>
<p>I’m very concerned about the insurance companies. How are they going to make money?</p>
<p>Why do people have it in for insurance companies? They do employ a lot of people and utilize ancillary services like law firms, accounting firms, building management, etc. I don’t see what is so terrible about making money.</p>
<p>“But some people would prefer to retire early, in their 50’s, but don’t because they need health insurance for themselves and their families. If the new healthcare law makes it possible for people in that category to retire, that will be good for everyone.”</p>
<p>Would that be good for everyone? Is it good to encourage people to retire early (lowering the tax base) and have people not working for the next 30-50 years of their life? It would be one thing if this was self sustaining, as far as health insurance, but are we are talking about subsidizing medical insurance for younger people so they can retire early, not because they need to, but because they want to? </p>
<p>Sure, I’d like to retire at 50, myself. Not because I need to, but because I’d like to get a regular night of sleep more often and travel to fun places. I like my job, but I’m kind of tired of working. Should I actually expect taxpayers to subsidize my medical insurance so I can go play, when I am in prime working years, and somebody does need to pay taxes.</p>
<p>Or is this part of the new healthcare law self sustaining, not adding a new debt burden to our children?</p>
<p>“Who is saying that?”</p>
<p>Lots of people. Read letters to the editor. Why did so many legislators point out the excellent coverage that some folks have as an argument against any change that would cover the uninsured? I think “screw you” is a pretty good summary of the literal message the uninsured hear today: “Go to the ER, and if they can’t help you, then suffer and die.”</p>
<p>“Why don’t we just force all private/great public schools to shut down because it’s not fair that some kids get an excellent education, and others don’t.”</p>
<p>What? You have the analogy backwards. In health care, right now, we don’t have the equivalent of universal public education. I support launching it. I’m not trying to shut down the private schools (or doctors). I’m trying to get a minimum floor for everyone. We have it in education, policing, fire protection, and defense.</p>
<p>“There has to be a far better way to keep the positives of our healthcare system and improve access for everyone and lower cost.”</p>
<p>I’m interested to hear your ideas. You mentioned Germany, which has a mandatory multipayer system much like Obamacare, but with a public option like the one he sought and lost. About 85% of Germans use the public option, with about 15% paying for private insurance that offers more luxuries.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’m with you. I don’t get why we love to bash the insurance companies so much except I think they make a very convenient punching bag for groups like the docs and the hospital bureaucrats who actually do take the lion’s share of our proverbial health care dollar – and no, I don’t work in health insurance! :</p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Health Care Costs: Issue Modules, Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx]U.S”>http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/us-health-care-costs/background-brief.aspx)</p>
<p>I dont have it in for insurance companies. I think they stand to continue making profits in the auto home property worlds.They can also contract to administer healthcare claims etc. But to make profit from healthcare I believe is counter to our societys best interests. For profit do many things better than not for profit, however, caring for the ill should not be profit driven. just my .02</p>
<p>Hanna, I try not to read letters to the editors, along with comments online after news stories. Seems when people are anonymous, they are vicious and unaccountable (unlike here at cc, of course)! So I have never read people saying others should just suffer and die.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why this hasn’t been figured out by now. I know it’s complicated, but really…seems there are enough examples of how other countries have done it to figure out the best way.</p>
<p>zm, I don’t think the insurance companies are evil. However, I think the system would work much better with either a single payer or (like Germany) a single dominant payer. Just compare the cost to providers of Medicare paperwork vs. private insurance paperwork. It’s a lot.</p>
<p>I view health insurance companies like tobacco farmers. The campaign against tobacco use is not about driving them out of business, it’s about improving public health. Tobacco farms going under is an unavoidable side effect of establishing a better lifestyle where their product isn’t needed.</p>
<p>“I have never read people saying others should just suffer and die.”</p>
<p>In the end, it doesn’t really matter if they say it or not…they are DOING it. The practical message is loud and clear even when it remains unspoken.</p>
<p>“seems there are enough examples of how other countries have done it to figure out the best way.”</p>
<p>There are. This is a political problem, not a policy problem.</p>
<p>Hanna,</p>
<p>Where is your data on Medicare “paperwork” for docs? Docs don’t like Medicare because the reimbursement is low. I have never heard a doc say, “Gee whizz! This Mediare paperwork is a breeze!”</p>
<p>I would urge you to take a look at the pie chart prepared by Kaiser (a nonprofit health insurance organization) that quite pithily lays out the breakdown of exactly where our healthcare dollars go.</p>
<p>What’s fun about the piece is that it singles out health insurance (a whopping 6 percent of the health care dollar) and pharma (an evil 10 percent) as the culprits when hospital services and docs weigh in at 50 percent.</p>
<p>I have worked in health outcomes or what is now called evidence based medicine. In truth, health care costs are driven down by pharma because pharma products keep folks out of the hospital and away from the doc’s office. Health insurance actually is evolving quickly to a force for good in that it helps reign in costs by paying close attention to what keeps people healthy and on the job - what drugs, what therapies, what diets, what fitness centers. </p>
<p>But this means focussing on something more complex than the easy conclusion that it’s the big bad insurance companies and/or the evil drug industry.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s good to have health insurance linked to employment because then the health insurance is really about keeping you working because the employer is partly paying for their services. And keeping people working is a good thing. </p>
<p>Anyone care to look at the explosion of disability in our country of late?</p>
<p>
Example: [Fewer</a> healthcare options for illegal immigrants - The Monitor: Local News](<a href=“http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_44cdbf24-4cb6-11e2-874f-001a4bcf6878.html]Fewer”>http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_44cdbf24-4cb6-11e2-874f-001a4bcf6878.html)</p>
<p>Does anyone else find it odd that an illegal alien is teaching citizenship classes?</p>