Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

[treykane]

This is my first post outside of my intro but this issue hits home with me.

I agree with the assessments that blanket government health care would be ultimately a bad thing, and seriously alter the health care industry in this country, right down to the orderly running supplies around the hospital.

In my opinion and observations doing home care, it all comes down to cost. Either you have a job where an employer pays for a portion or sometimes all of your health care or you do not. Those that do not have to pay outrageous rates for decent health care. Medicare, Medicaid, all of those programs help. But, the system is confusing, hard to navigate and a lot of times will pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover. Simply put it is flawed.

A blanket government health care program would most likely turn into the same thing. I can only envision people lining up to pre-qualify for a surgery they need, or a wife being told that her husband has been on life support too long and they're going to have to discharge him, because their medical benefits had run out.

I think a better solution would be to reorganize the Medicare programs, make them easier to use, and give better coverage. Then in the private sector offer better rates to the individual. For families with incomes 30,000 a year or lower, $500-$900 a month is a big dent in their income, for something they won't use every month.

When any of my friends or family say we need national health coverage I quickly point out that we already have it, its just not good.

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by treykane

This is my first post outside of my intro but this issue hits home with me.

I agree with the assessments that blanket government health care would be ultimately a bad thing, and seriously alter the health care industry in this country, right down to the orderly running supplies around the hospital.

In my opinion and observations doing home care, it all comes down to cost. Either you have a job where an employer pays for a portion or sometimes all of your health care or you do not. Those that do not have to pay outrageous rates for decent health care. Medicare, Medicaid, all of those programs help. But, the system is confusing, hard to navigate and a lot of times will pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover. Simply put it is flawed.

A blanket government health care program would most likely turn into the same thing. I can only envision people lining up to pre-qualify for a surgery they need, or a wife being told that her husband has been on life support too long and they're going to have to discharge him, because their medical benefits had run out.

I think a better solution would be to reorganize the Medicare programs, make them easier to use, and give better coverage. Then in the private sector offer better rates to the individual. For families with incomes 30,000 a year or lower, $500-$900 a month is a big dent in their income, for something they won't use every month.

When any of my friends or family say we need national health coverage I quickly point out that we already have it, its just not good.

Good point, another good example of free services for everyone would be the Public School system. The better Public School system are usally funded by Parents who voluntarly pay more into it.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by treykane

....In my opinion and observations doing home care, it all comes down to cost. Either you have a job where an employer pays for a portion or sometimes all of your health care or you do not. Those that do not have to pay outrageous rates for decent health care.......

That statement leads to "WHY".

Why is health insurance not like car insurance? A person picks the services and deductables they think they can afford and live with.

Why can corporations write off/down medical expenses but the self employed are very limited on what is deductable?

It comes down to the same thing. Congress uses it's big stick to beat up on the average American. Just like the income tax code.

Right now congress is fixin' to putter around with the 20 year retirement and Tri Care fees.

The all volunteer force is working too well during a war so they want to see if they can make military service as unappealing as they can.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Pete

That statement leads to "WHY".

Why is health insurance not like car insurance? A person picks the services and deductables they think they can afford and live with.

Why can corporations write off/down medical expenses but the self employed are very limited on what is deductable?

It comes down to the same thing. Congress uses it's big stick to beat up on the average American. Just like the income tax code.

Right now congress is fixin' to putter around with the 20 year retirement and Tri Care fees.

The all volunteer force is working too well during a war so they want to see if they can make military service as unappealing as they can.

Part of the reason why medical insurance is totally out of control (even for the most basic of coverage) is not surprisingly due to politicians. For instance, in New Jersey every health insurance policy has to cover abortions. My last plan covered up to 10 a year. Insurance has to cover drug and alcohol rehab. It has to cover nursing home care. It has to cover hospice care. And several other costly goodies.

To make matters worse the state has mandated that the insurance companies can't charge more for fatty Mclardass who weighs 400 pounds, has hypertension and smokes three packs of Malboro's a day than they can a 25 year old tri-athlete. It is already a form of socialized medicine.

I am paying through the nose for some loser to have an abortion, or their stay in detox. It isn't right. I should be able to elect out of that needless crap and tailor my plan to suit my and my families needs but thanks to the communist hacks that run this state I can't. I can't speak for any other state out there but I get the feeling most people would be shocked at what their state mandates in their most basic health care insurance.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Pete

That statement leads to "WHY".

Why is health insurance not like car insurance? A person picks the services and deductables they think they can afford and live with.

Why can corporations write off/down medical expenses but the self employed are very limited on what is deductable?

It comes down to the same thing. Congress uses it's big stick to beat up on the average American. Just like the income tax code.

Right now congress is fixin' to putter around with the 20 year retirement and Tri Care fees.

The all volunteer force is working too well during a war so they want to see if they can make military service as unappealing as they can.

Corporate America and the wealthy can hire law firms to find the best route through the minefields that Congress scatters.

(By the way, the current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year. )

This is true in the healthcare world as well as the tax code. The average American is the one who takes the hit. The more the jokers up on the big house on the hill try to go after the "offenders" the more beat-down the average American and small business owner is.

How many people do you know that work well beyond their eligible retirement age just to keep corporate sponsored health care?

When was the last time you saw a senior elected official sitting in the ER at 02:00 with a sick kid waiting with all of the crack-heads, homeless and illegals?

Unfortunately the public has the memory capacity of a chicken. They blink, and it's a whole new world.

[82ndtrooper]

That woman never ceases to amaze me. What amazes me even more, is the men and women that raise their "Hillary Support" signs and whistle her on to a probable victory in the general election. I'm convinced her base is either incredibly naive, stupid, ignorant or isn't really American. (insert whatever you want)

As the The Reaper said, if you wanna see National/Socialized health care, then just visit the local VA hospital and ask one of the men in the pharmacy how long he's been waiting for his 30 pills so he can catch the bus back home.

She hasn't brought it up in a while, but you have to remember that this woman said on national television, Good Morning America, that she would instil a national health care data base, with all your health records available nationwide by just typing in your name, or social security number. What is it about that her supporters don't see ?

[Razor]

I have the secret to (currently) affordable lifetime healthcare...raise your right hand, swear in and take your chances on the two-way range. Unfortunately, it will still cost you an arm and leg, but luckily its a one-time cost.

[jwt5]

Whenever I find myself speaking about the evils of Klinton (which is quite often down here) the national health care ALWAYS comes up.

My usual rebuttal is to tell some stories of my experience on Ft Stewart anytime I had to go to sickcall (and how I usually just suffered through my cold or whatever instead of going).

Particularly when they decided to shut down all the "clinics" that were assigned a few units and opened the one large "family med clinic" on post that was put in place to help all units and family members.

Of course this worked out great when we were all deployed....

[smp52]

I posted the following on SOCNET the other day, on a similar thread, discussing socialized healthcare. Based upon the vaunted UN's own data, the US is actually above its western european EU counterparts when it comes to human development (health care and long life being a factor in it). EDITED slightly for clarity.....

I've done this exercise before, but just to make my point that the USA isn't too far off the top of the list once normalized for population, I will use the UN's own data from the Human Development Index (a composite figure) to make my point. I will use only EU nations for a comparison to ensure it is comparable to the United States (ranked 12), so we're not getting too far off winding up doing an apples and oranges comparison.

Now, I want to compare approximately 300 million people, so I'll take the EU (494 million) minus the smaller players (who are higher up on the list and at towards the bottom third), which represent the following numbers and approximately 63% of the EU population (309 Million):

Germany - rank #22, 16.8% of pop. (82,400,996)
France - rank #10, 13% of pop(63,718,187)
UK- rank# 16, 12.39% of pop (60,776,238)
Italy - rank #20, 11.86 % of pop (58,147,733)
Spain - rank #13, 9% of pop (44,448,191)

So, normalizing for population, how do the above big boys of the EU compare to the USA?
The rank of the five nations listed above comes to approx. 16
The rank of the total EU comes to approx. 22
EDIT: The ranks are below the USA, though not too far off, but still lower.

So much for how much the US is behind its European counterparts in Human Development. One can't take a look at health care in isolation, it has to be looked at with other economic factors that balance things out. The growth and economy of the United States is far more beneficial, constraining that with a nationalized health care system for 300 million people would not help, rather slow down development.

HDI measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living.

EDIT: My hypothesis is that anything 'social' works only when consent is unanimous. This ideal condition only works in small, homogenous (social, ethnic, racial, religious, economic, political) groups. For Europe, the Scandinavians are the closest one gets to this ideal. Most of the world doesn't fit this, so in order to fit the square peg in a round hole, consent (freedom) is what gets taken away. For a diverse and large population of the United States, it simply cannot work for a myriad of reasons, the first one being a model that does not fit the demographics. The above numbers show that we don't need a 'radical' shift, rather removal of constraints to make the system efficient.

[warrottjr]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

...if you go by the Big Mac index (used to measure the general cost of things in a nation), you find that a Big Mac in Norway costs twice what it does in the U.S. That makes their 10% GDP per capita advantage dry up pretty quick.

All hail the infallible Big Max Index! We need to tie our COLA's to the Big Mac Index.

[smp52]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

From what I understand from some economists, the UN Human Development Index is nothing more than a way for the socialists at the United Nations to try to "prove" that the standard of living of the quasi-socialist nations, such as Sweden, Norway, etc...is higher than the United States.

If you talk to socialists, they'll often say, "The Scandinavian nations have a higher standard of living than the United States," and according to the HDI, they do.

However, when you go by the much older and more reliable measure of standard of living, GDP per capita, the U.S. is higher than the Scandinavian nations, with the exception of Norway, which has a 10% higher GDP per capita.

Yup, this is exactly the reason why whenever people claim (or discussion ensues on socialized healthcare) how much better the Scandinavian countries are, or Europe in general, I like to use their very own HDI numbers byt weighing them against population and rank, then compare it to the USA. Once you're comparing apples to apples, even with biased numbers against us, the USA comes ahead.

[Justinmd]

I know many of you guys have probably read the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, but if you haven't, it is worth reading. After reading this thread, I feel like the book was written yesterday about this country's situation (It was written in the 50's I believe). It's really eerie, actually.
J