What, no thread on health care yet?

Whoops double post

aircooled wrote: It reads to me like he either promised to move to Costa Rica (in 5 years), which would seem to be the more likely interpretation or he is planning on going to Costa Rica for his health care (using its socialized system).

One suspects he's employing sarcasm, not unlike the ilk of Streisand, Cher, Vedder, et al. They are still here, in spite of their increasing irrelevance.

The same will happen with Limbaugh but it will take longer since he offers a product currently in favor with consumers.

ignorant wrote: speaking of hyperbole... Sorry I made fun of your girlfriend...

It's cool, dude.

I promise to not make fun of your mistress.

MrJoshua wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I cannot understand you folks who are blaming insurance companies for the high cost of medical care. I go to the hospital and get an MRI, the hospital bill is $2,000 or more. Insurance pays out much less, I pay a relatively small portion and the hospital says OK. If I didn't have insurance I would be stuck with the full amount and would likely have to pre-pay. I had a 15 minute procedue to remove a small tumor from my bladder, First hospital bill was almost 20K. Final was around 3K. Seems to me the insurance company (mine is BC/BS) has lowered my costs. One problem I see if the costs at hospitals is they all want to have the latest greatest equipment. Used to be only one at a time could have an MRI, CT or whatever. They cost several million dollars and are "out of date" in a few years. Nothing wrong, with them, just not new with all the frills. I suspect they are trashed when they could really be used elsewhere, maybe even overseas in some third world country.

You get it. Tuna55 gets it. How exactly does an industry that sees a 3% profit margin get such a bad rep?

The health insurance industry is like a loan shark or crack dealer facilitating a nation of hypochondriac prescription pill junkies.

Hrmmm.... please explain?

Health insurance hides the cost of medical care or drugs and spreads those costs over a long enough time to make them less painfull. Without true knowledge of price and having paid into they system anyway people gravitate towards taking anything offered,available, and advertised and expecting premium treatment. Got the sniffles-go to the doctor, back pain-get some pills, doctor is busy-go to the emergency room. Overuse drives up price, increased price and lack of immediate financial burden drives up expectation of service. Eventually the price gets too high even if you spread it over time-waaaaaaaaaaaah, it's a crisis, won't the govt please do something? At one time most people used health insurance to prevent going bankrupt, eventually people came to use it to pay every dime of their health care. That eventually became a bad deal and many people opted out. opting out meant increases in prices for everyone else. Now opting out is not an option. 93-tell me how an industry with profits in the many billions attached to my health care makes it cheaper?

The costs certainly aren't hidden, i'll tell you that much. The problem is that Americans as a people just simply don't care to educate themselves. All the information is spoon-fed to you, and every other person that has insurance. You just choose to ignore it.

Check out your EOB sometime.

When you look at the profits like that, you're missing the point. How's about a 3% profit?

I hope that sounds ok. One of the lowest profit margins in the US.

It makes your health care cheaper by quite a large margin. Add up your yearly premiums say for... the last two years. Add your copays/coinsurance that you paid out.

Compare those to the BILLED CHARGE that you see on your EOBs. (Assuming you even had services done.)

Come back and let me know what you find.

My health insurance has saved my girlfriend and i well over $1000 already this year.

zomby woof wrote:

Zomby woof said: I'm sure the people who work for the insurance companies are nice, but your health is not their first priority

This is what I meant. Do you want your health in their hands? I wouldn't.

Nope. I wouldn't either. Good thing it's not, since we aren't certified medical professionals anyways.

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: speaking of hyperbole... Sorry I made fun of your girlfriend...

It's cool, dude. I promise to not make fun of your mistress.

ZOO wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Does Canada have the Bill of Rights? How about the Constitution? A nice, hard fought revolutionary war that nearly cost our founding fathers their lives? No? Then your comparisons are moot. Sorry, but unless you gov't has outlined it's laws and rights with the same wording, same documentation as we have then your comparisons to your motherland are not valid. Sorry, I've been following Canadians on every board lately touting how great they are blah blah blah and how much better they have it sacrificing their civil liberties, freedoms and income to the motherland to supplement someone else. Guess what, this isn't Canada. glad you love it. I know many that are looking to get OUT of there.

We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And countless Canadians have fought for those rights (just like in the US). It's worth a read: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Interesting, in that they are ENSHRINED in the Constitution -- unlike a Bill of Rights they CANNOT be changed by legislation. Big difference.

Not to be a butthead, but yes the Canadian Constitution can be amended. Same as ours. Constitutions are not suicide pacts.

The big difference between our Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter: ours has been in existence a LOT longer.

ZOO wrote: All of the Canadians who have responded in this thread have been respectul, and simply pointed out their experiences. There hasn't been bravodo and BS about how great our system is. There has been an honest dialogue about what it costs us, and what it provides based on questions asked by other forum members who appear to be interested. That may not be the case on other forums, but you don't need to read them.

I distinctly recall one post concerning profit motives. Somehow the Canadian system is 'purer' because it doesn't make a profit.

I will go ahead and say the obvious, underlying thing that I, and a few others have been thinking. 3% profit or no, I think that the profit motive is good. This is a bit off topic, so don't take it too far in this thread, but I hypothesize that it is not the profit motive that has brought about some of this ridiculous short term profit seekers that often break the law or commit huge ethics violations, it is the government which has tried to restrain the real free market which has enabled those types of people to exist and prosper. In other words, profit is good. In health care, in housing, in cigarettes, in cars, whatever. The market should decide what something costs, and the companies should try to make whatever mix of best product/cheapest product they can muster, and the people will choose according to their individual goals and values. This should include health insurance, and health care.

Jensenman said: Not to be a butthead, but yes the Canadian Constitution can be amended.

Not to be a butthead back, but there is quite a bit of difference when it comes to amending a Consititution (even a relatively young one like ours, or yours when compared to the Magna Charta ) and a Bill. A bill can be amended by another bill -- but a constitutional amendment requires huge consnesus (at least seven provinces and 50 percent of the poulation). Of course, it would be political suicide in either country to try and amend guarenteed rights and freedoms.

Being Canadian, I'd like to apolgize for other Canadians who have been jerks on other forums.

Profits are not only good and a noble goal, but markets seeking them are predictable and efficient. Only when some artificial constraint acts upon a market does it become inefficient.

It's not difficult to list the outside constraints that have caused the inefficiences in the US healthcare system. Given the outside constraints, the system is pretty much running at optimal efficiency.

So to improve the efficiency, it's necessary to reduce the constraints... not something under consideration. In fact, the new system places much greater restraints on the system which will logically drive up both inefficiencies and costs.

Comparisons of other healthcare systems are invalid because the constraints and expectations are vastly different... not the least of which is the misunderstanding from those in other systems how much they are indriectly subsidzed by the current (or rather former) US system.

Government bureacracies, on the other hand, run on a power motive. They are invariably inefficient because efficiency isn't necessary (nor even desirable) to achieve power... rather the system will reward what gives it the most power.

Bill

In reply to oldsaw:

when have I ever demanded entitlements? I've never said I want a single payer system. Ever. Not online or in conversation with real people. I've never excepted any government help. No welfare, no unemployment, nothing. And I've never faulted anyone for useing those things either. I made my previous post questioning poop on whether he wanted me to move out of the country simply because I was uninsured. The way you put it, oldsaw, makes it sound like you want me to leave the country because you think I disagree with you (when, at least on this subject, I don't think we are even that far apart). That seems pretty well counter to what this country was founded on. Honestly, people wanting me to leave the country because they think that I want a handout makes me pretty angry. All I did was start this thread to find out anything I could about the bill. Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, I just don't like to have things assumed about me. I do want more affordable health care. I don't expect anyone to pay for it for me. I like some of the repubs ideas to save costs. In fact I probably like them more than most of the dems ideas.

Joey

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I cannot understand you folks who are blaming insurance companies for the high cost of medical care. I go to the hospital and get an MRI, the hospital bill is $2,000 or more. Insurance pays out much less, I pay a relatively small portion and the hospital says OK. If I didn't have insurance I would be stuck with the full amount and would likely have to pre-pay. I had a 15 minute procedue to remove a small tumor from my bladder, First hospital bill was almost 20K. Final was around 3K. Seems to me the insurance company (mine is BC/BS) has lowered my costs. One problem I see if the costs at hospitals is they all want to have the latest greatest equipment. Used to be only one at a time could have an MRI, CT or whatever. They cost several million dollars and are "out of date" in a few years. Nothing wrong, with them, just not new with all the frills. I suspect they are trashed when they could really be used elsewhere, maybe even overseas in some third world country.

You get it. Tuna55 gets it. How exactly does an industry that sees a 3% profit margin get such a bad rep?

The health insurance industry is like a loan shark or crack dealer facilitating a nation of hypochondriac prescription pill junkies.

Hrmmm.... please explain?

Health insurance hides the cost of medical care or drugs and spreads those costs over a long enough time to make them less painfull. Without true knowledge of price and having paid into they system anyway people gravitate towards taking anything offered,available, and advertised and expecting premium treatment. Got the sniffles-go to the doctor, back pain-get some pills, doctor is busy-go to the emergency room. Overuse drives up price, increased price and lack of immediate financial burden drives up expectation of service. Eventually the price gets too high even if you spread it over time-waaaaaaaaaaaah, it's a crisis, won't the govt please do something? At one time most people used health insurance to prevent going bankrupt, eventually people came to use it to pay every dime of their health care. That eventually became a bad deal and many people opted out. opting out meant increases in prices for everyone else. Now opting out is not an option. 93-tell me how an industry with profits in the many billions attached to my health care makes it cheaper?

The costs certainly aren't hidden, i'll tell you that much. The problem is that Americans as a people just simply don't care to educate themselves. All the information is spoon-fed to you, and every other person that has insurance. You just choose to ignore it. Check out your EOB sometime. When you look at the profits like that, you're missing the point. How's about a 3% profit? I hope that sounds ok. One of the lowest profit margins in the US. It makes your health care cheaper by quite a large margin. Add up your yearly premiums say for... the last two years. Add your copays/coinsurance that you paid out. Compare those to the BILLED CHARGE that you see on your EOBs. (Assuming you even had services done.) Come back and let me know what you find. My health insurance has saved my girlfriend and i well over $1000 already this year.

Billed charges don't mean jack unless you are the poor sap who tries to pay out of pocket and actually pays that amount. Profit margins don't mean crap either, I just couldn't find any other solid info in a 5 second search. Let me rephrase the question-If the health insurance industry pays its employees, its taxes, its insurance , its rent, and gets its profit above and beyond the premiums it takes in and pays out, then health care now cost what its worth PLUS all of those costs. How is that making my health care cheaper?

ZOO wrote:

Jensenman said: Not to be a butthead, but yes the Canadian Constitution can be amended.

Not to be a butthead back, but there is quite a bit of difference when it comes to amending a Consititution (even a relatively young one like ours, or yours when compared to the Magna Charta ) and a Bill. A bill can be amended by another bill -- but a constitutional amendment requires huge consnesus (at least seven provinces and 50 percent of the poulation). Of course, it would be political suicide in either country to try and amend guarenteed rights and freedoms. Being Canadian, I'd like to apolgize for other Canadians who have been jerks on other forums.

um, not to be a butthead to you for being an uninformed butthead, but the bill of rights is simply the first ten amendments to the US Constitution

do yourself a favor next time, and at least read the wiki page on what it is you pretend to know everything about.
here, i'll help you out a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

joey48442 wrote: In reply to oldsaw: when have I ever demanded entitlements? I've never said I want a single payer system. Ever. Not online or in conversation with real people. I've never excepted any government help. No welfare, no unemployment, nothing. And I've never faulted anyone for useing those things either. I made my previous post questioning poop on whether he wanted me to move out of the country simply because I was uninsured. The way you put it, oldsaw, makes it sound like you want me to leave the country because you *think* I disagree with you (when, at least on this subject, I don't think we are even that far apart). That seems pretty well counter to what this country was founded on. Honestly, people wanting me to leave the country because they *think* that I want a handout makes me pretty angry. All I did was start this thread to find out anything I could about the bill. Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, I just don't like to have things assumed about me. I do want more affordable health care. I don't expect anyone to pay for it for me. I like some of the repubs ideas to save costs. In fact I probably like them more than most of the dems ideas. Joey

pay attention! like two pages ago i clarified this, and i'm pretty sure oldsaw did too, IF you expect entitlements because you're too lazy to go get something for yourself, then you are no good "for the greater good" and it would be best you left.

IF you are not one of those people, then there is no issue.

i can't tell if you really just misunderstood what was said, or if you're trying to start a pissing contest, but hopefully this clears it up

In reply to MrJoshua: How is that making my health care cheaper?

That's not the primary question. The question would be "given the outside constraints, what other type of insurance system would make my healthcare cheaper"?

The only answer we know for sre is wrong is "a Government run system". Because never in history has any Government taken over a service being provided by a commercial market and managed to provide the same level of service at a lower price. Government does have the power to change the equation where it may appear that way, but in all cases if it similarly changed the equation for the market, the market would run more efficiently.

Strizzo wrote:

joey48442 wrote: In reply to oldsaw: when have I ever demanded entitlements? I've never said I want a single payer system. Ever. Not online or in conversation with real people. I've never excepted any government help. No welfare, no unemployment, nothing. And I've never faulted anyone for useing those things either. I made my previous post questioning poop on whether he wanted me to move out of the country simply because I was uninsured. The way you put it, oldsaw, makes it sound like you want me to leave the country because you *think* I disagree with you (when, at least on this subject, I don't think we are even that far apart). That seems pretty well counter to what this country was founded on. Honestly, people wanting me to leave the country because they *think* that I want a handout makes me pretty angry. All I did was start this thread to find out anything I could about the bill. Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, I just don't like to have things assumed about me. I do want more affordable health care. I don't expect anyone to pay for it for me. I like some of the repubs ideas to save costs. In fact I probably like them more than most of the dems ideas. Joey

pay attention! like two pages ago i clarified this, and i'm pretty sure oldsaw did too, IF you expect entitlements because you're too lazy to go get something for yourself, then you are no good "for the greater good" and it would be best you left. IF you are not one of those people, then there is no issue. i can't tell if you really just misunderstood what was said, or if you're trying to start a pissing contest, but hopefully this clears it up

Thank you, Strizzo!

Joey chose to focus on a part of my post, not its' entirety; if I failed to make the point clear, my apologies to him.

And Joey, if you started this thread to learn more about the contents of the reform bill, you could have stated said intentions on page one, post one.

In reply to Strizzo: I know you tried to clear it up, and I'm not trying to start a pissing match, I just don't like someone wanting me to leave my country because they think we don't agree. I'm sorry I started this thread.

Joey

In reply to joey48442:

Joey, do not apologize for starting this thread.

The discussion only proves we can have (reasonably) civil debates on matters much greater than the things that first brought us here. While I may disagree with some of the thread's participants, their input also gives me incentive to learn more and gain perspective. I can only hope it does the same for you - and others.

And I'll open your Christmas card regardless of the mailing address.

In reply to joey48442:

i don't think the reason for leaving would be simply that we disagree, it would be that [hypothetical] you think we should pay for things for you, that [hypothetical] you have no desire to go out and get for yourself. follow [hypothetically]?

robbing peter to pay paul always sounds pretty good to paul.

In reply to oldsaw: I won't be moving anytime soon, at least not to Canada... I am way to into guns.

I did pay attention to your whole post, I simply took offense to a certain part.

Joey

some quick news types thingys

• the bill has to go back to the house.. ohh boy this is going to get uglier http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html

• http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party25-2010mar25,0,6338744.story
  Good job teabaggers split the vote and ruin the chance for a Repub majority

• Threats didn't work... Racial slurs didn't work.. So we'll get violent.. Good job 'baggers.. Good Job! http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieYu07gp70-7oDIgoUOqgoWq4GtQD9EL8VE80

Let the media assassination of the crazy people ratchet up....

Strizzo wrote:

ZOO wrote:

Jensenman said: Not to be a butthead, but yes the Canadian Constitution can be amended.

Not to be a butthead back, but there is quite a bit of difference when it comes to amending a Consititution (even a relatively young one like ours, or yours when compared to the Magna Charta ) and a Bill. A bill can be amended by another bill -- but a constitutional amendment requires huge consnesus (at least seven provinces and 50 percent of the poulation). Of course, it would be political suicide in either country to try and amend guarenteed rights and freedoms. Being Canadian, I'd like to apolgize for other Canadians who have been jerks on other forums.

um, not to be a butthead to you for being an uninformed butthead, but the bill of rights is simply the first ten amendments to the US Constitution do yourself a favor next time, and at least read the wiki page on what it is you pretend to know everything about. here, i'll help you out a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I was speaking about our former Bill of Rights in Canada -- which could be amended by legislation. The origninal reponse was to a question as whether or not Canada has a Consitution, and a Bill of Rights. I know there is lots to keep track of in ths thread, so I'll forgive you for making an assumption about my level of knowledge about my OWN country

wcelliot wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: How is that making my health care cheaper? That's not the primary question. The question would be "given the outside constraints, what other type of insurance system would make my healthcare cheaper"? The only answer we know for sre is wrong is "a Government run system". Because never in history has any Government taken over a service being provided by a commercial market and managed to provide the same level of service at a lower price. Government does have the power to change the equation where it may appear that way, but in all cases if it similarly changed the equation for the market, the market would run more efficiently.

The only reason I would like to see health insurance as it stands go away is that we are totally misusing it. The system needs a reset. I do think it has a place, just not paying such a high percent of health care costs. Removing the knowledge of price in health care removes the need to compete for a customers business through cheaper prices. A policy that prevents an individual from going bankrupt makes decent sense and is fairly reasonably priced even in todays "OMG no-one can afford health insurance we need to force them to buy it" situation.
The govt can make health care cheaper, just not by forcing us to buy excessive insurance.

Toyman01 wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

Zomby woof said: I'm sure the people who work for the insurance companies are nice, but your health is not their first priority

This is what I meant. Do you want your health in their hands? I wouldn't.

Rather them than some government bureaucrat. Have you been to the DMV lately. There is nothing worse than dealing with an indifferent public servant.

We don't call it the DMV here, but yes, I am there regularly. The women that run the place kick ass. Have a question? Call them. Need to know how to get something done within the ministry? Call them. Need to know the loopholes in order to get your wacky vehicle on the road? They know it, and don't mind telling you. I'm going there today, and looking forward to it.

wcelliot wrote: Comparisons of other healthcare systems are invalid because the constraints and expectations are vastly different... not the least of which is the misunderstanding from those in other systems how much they are indriectly subsidzed by the current (or rather former) US system.

I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. The last thing Canadians should be doing is trying to talk Americans into implementing real change in our healthcare system.