Destino Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Because it would be a collosal failure. We arent Canada. The majorit dont WANT Govt Healthcare. Our system isnt perfect, but it's better than waiting 5 months for an MRI. Waiting 5 months for an MRI sucks, but if the trend here continues people won't have insurance and simply won't have access to preventative care at all. This will result in more Emergency room vists, which as you wrote just now are making hospitals go broke. My point? The current system is on it's way to being "a collosal failure" that makes Canada's shortage look just peachy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Hm, I was at 4 months before my insurance authorized the mri on my leg. Maybe it was just my doc saying he didn't want the hassle of dealing with Blue Cross, but I think we're kidding ourselves saying our healthcare is without delays. Why do we have the highest percapita spent on healthcare, yet we are usually no where near the top in healthcare received by most measures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Because it would be a collosal failure. We arent Canada. The majorit dont WANT Govt Healthcare. Our system isnt perfect, but it's better than waiting 5 months for an MRI. Seriously bro. If you want to talk about systems. Talk. About this 5 months waiting for an MRI... is utter crap and nonsense. It all depends on what family doctor you have, what privileges they have at what hospital, and how many people visit that hospital, and what the waiting list is. I know you read this story once that happened 5 years ago in this obsolete article written from a now-defunct company. But let's stop using the exceptions as the norm OK? I had a back problem. Got an MRI 2 days later. There ya go. Use that as your example when you speak about how great the Canadian health care system is. Truth is.... the Canadian system works on an emergency basis. Not a "who can afford it now.... gets in first" philosophy. If you've got chronic back pain that you've lived with for 5 years... you know what? You can probably wait another 6 months until surgery. It ain't gonna kill ya. But 10 people come through trauma? Yeah, they take priority. And if requires you wait a few weeks.... Well, I'm fine with that. I don't think that's necessarily "ass backwards". For example, my wife has a REALLY bad arthritic condition in her hips. She's had it since she was 13. However, as painful as it is, SURGERY IS ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT. And it wasn't until there wasn't a complete shred of cartilage left - where it was bone on bone - that the specialist finally recommended surgery. She was on painkillers for years. Now, the waiting list was about a year. Of course, that depends on the doctors too. For instance, the more reputable the doctor, the more patients he/she sees, the longer the waiting list. We could've seen a surgeon with a quarter of that waiting list. Now, given her condition, they put her on EMERGENCY standby. That means, if anybody cancels - ill health (they can't go through surgery), or they elect NOT to have surgery for whatever reason - she gets in. Turns out, she had surgery in less than 2 months after being put on the waiting list. For THAT particular doctor... in THAT particular city. And he was the BEST. So this nonsense on what you "perceive" about the Canadian health care should really stop. Because obviously, you don't know enough about it to discuss it. That's why I don't comment on the American Health Care system. As well, I'm IN the Canadian Health Care system. So I'm familiar how it works as well. And I use it quite frequently myself For nauseating headaches caused from stress from board members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Well with the insurance industry we always hear horror stories of denied claims and such. At the same time I see executive taking home a great deal of money while sick people are being screwed. So then the obvious question from these stereotypes is, how do I know how much of my money is being used on care versus company costs. That ratio would seem to me to be an all important figure. Go to the insurance company's 10-K report. There are a couple of numbers you want to look at. You want to check out the investment income on float (float is the money insurance companies get from customers that they hold in reserve to pay out claims, while that money is being held, the insurance company invests that money to earn a return - it is essentially borrowing money for very cheap) The company with the best return on float is the company that is using your money most efficiently As far as how much of the money you pay goes to costs. The overall number is called the Undrwriting Gain. The equation for Underwriting Gain/(Loss) is Earned Premium - losses and LAE - commissions - overhead expenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forbeskin Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 http://www.cubawifriends.org/hospitals_turn_away_ill.htm When Martinez walked into the Rose ER on April 27, he told the nurse he'd already been to Denver Health, where a doctor confirmed he'd broken three ribs and fractured his jaw. But the same doctor refused to treat him unless he had insurance or cash because he did not live in Denver County, he said. "They told me to go back to New Mexico," said Martinez who had been visiting his girlfriend and her mother in a small town outside Santa Fe when he was attacked and beaten. People being turned away happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Here's a question: If health care is such a drain on resources, why not separate health care provision from employment? Let consumers pick and choose on an actual MARKET where insurers have to tailor their services to the individual(as much as possible) and that would allow a person to keep the same insurance no matter how often they changed jobs or where they moved? Once insurance became a selling point/union demand, it started to go downhill. Insurance isn't cheap, but trust me, you're paying for it anyway. It's figured into your cost as an employee. How do I know? Cuz i'm right at the BORDER of full-time and thus do not get insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 People could form insurance clubs and group together to buy insurance...although as a fat smoker no one is going to want me in their club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 well, what you just described wasnt (by their definition) an emergency. But more on that in a moment. Let's step back one giant leap though and examine this point. Why do people feel entitled to free health care? Nobody can be denied the right to purchase health insurance. But there is no guarentee that everyone can afford it. My question is? So what? Make choices. If you want health insurance. Buy it. If you cant afford it, you should qualify for Medicaid. Which brings us back to the guy in Denver. If he didnt have insurance, he should have qualified for Medicaid. And if a hospital chose not to accept Medicaid, that's their option. Similar to Die Hards example in Canada. If he chose not to have Insurance, he may limit his options for places of care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 IMO, employers have a right to do what they want. Jobs are a privlidge, not a right. Also, I really agree with denying Health Insurance to those who smoke (by an employer) OR making them pay a higher premium while keeping others lower. If you want to make fat people pay more, fine. The bottom line is that it sucks to have to pay out the kazoo for people that put health risks upon themselves. Heck, If I were incharge, I'd drug test everyone and disqualify or fire those that failed tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 That's part of the problem Code. A group health plan cannot (by law) exclude some employees. It's a serious violation that would get the employer fined massive amounts, and the agent stripped of license, fined, and if bad enough jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 That's part of the problem Code. A group health plan cannot (by law) exclude some employees. It's a serious violation that would get the employer fined massive amounts, and the agent stripped of license, fined, and if bad enough jailed. The same theory applies to red-lining. IE, even though a certain part of town is more dangerous and has higher claims, you cant simply avoid writing insurance in that area because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Kilmer, I have a business question for you. Does your company incentivize based on revenues or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 well, what you just described wasnt (by their definition) an emergency. But more on that in a moment. Let's step back one giant leap though and examine this point. Why do people feel entitled to free health care? Nobody can be denied the right to purchase health insurance. But there is no guarentee that everyone can afford it. My question is? So what? Make choices. If you want health insurance. Buy it. If you cant afford it, you should qualify for Medicaid. Which brings us back to the guy in Denver. If he didnt have insurance, he should have qualified for Medicaid. And if a hospital chose not to accept Medicaid, that's their option. Similar to Die Hards example in Canada. If he chose not to have Insurance, he may limit his options for places of care. Health Care isn't free. It's paid for by taxes. Everyone's taxes. And just because you are unemployed today - the people exploiting the system - doesn't mean you will be forever. I've been paying taxes since I started working at age 14 I don't think anyone is advocating free health care. It's the principle that... some people OK with helping to supplement the cost of health care for those people that cannot afford to absorb the entire cost. That's the concept of social health care. You may agree with it or not. I'm not going to debate with you my philosophy. But anyway you cut it.... it's a NOBLE proposition for those willing to help pay for others who are less fortunate. You might think they're idiotic.... but it's still a nice gesture and mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 But anyway you cut it.... it's a NOBLE proposition for those willing to help pay for others who are less fortunate. It is noble to help others, but it is not noble to force others to pay for the help. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 But anyway you cut it.... it's a NOBLE proposition for those willing to help pay for others who are less fortunate. [/b] It is only noble when you voluntarily decide to use YOUR resources to help me. If I enlist the aid of a gunman (in this case, the government) to extort YOUR resources from you that action is ignoble. oops, just noticed that lib beat me to the punch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Just something to kick around here. In America, people ARE guaranteed healthcare. Even if you can not afford it. Don't believe me? Then go to the emergency room one night and see for yourself how many people come through the door who are seen and do not have insurance. I am sure Canada is a rosy example of how good government can provide healthcare. Although I am also sure that Canadian pay out the wazoo for this mandated healthcare. (Taxes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forbeskin Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Even if people are seen at the ER and don't have any insurance, what do you think it's free? They pay for it in full and some people (as I've shown before) are turned away from hospitals. Also, like I've said before I'd glady pay extra taxes so some family that can't afford health care could get it. I don't get it, so most of you people wouldn't pay extra taxes to benefit the greater good? Maybe that's why so many countries dislike us, because we think only of ourselves and don't ever see the big picture. Most of us just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 A woman was just fired because she was pregnant 4 months and married 2 months... at a 7th day adventist school i believe.. Any reason will do... its their perogitive but.. where do you draw the line? At what point does it become Gattaca like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 "I don't get it, so most of you people wouldn't pay extra taxes to benefit the greater good? Maybe that's why so many countries dislike us, because we think only of ourselves and don't ever see the big picture. Most of us just don't get it." Right. I'm not willing to pay for someone elses healthcare, and I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for mine. And screw what other countries think of us. Our country was built on the concept of self reliance and personal freedom. There is not guaranty in our Constitution to free health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaron Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by forbeskin I don't get it, so most of you people wouldn't pay extra taxes to benefit the greater good? Maybe that's why so many countries dislike us, because we think only of ourselves and don't ever see the big picture. Most of us just don't get it. No, I wouldn't. I work hard to keep myself in-shape and healthy to avoid having health care problems down the road. Why should I have to give away my hard earned money in order to help people who CHOOSE to smoke, eat horribly, and do other things that are KNOWN to cause health problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forbeskin Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa "I don't get it, so most of you people wouldn't pay extra taxes to benefit the greater good? Maybe that's why so many countries dislike us, because we think only of ourselves and don't ever see the big picture. Most of us just don't get it." Right. I'm not willing to pay for someone elses healthcare, and I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for mine. And screw what other countries think of us. Our country was built on the concept of self reliance and personal freedom. There is not guaranty in our Constitution to free health care. It's that attitude is what keep barriers up. People now-a-days don't want to raise a finger to help another out. It's one world, one race, were all in this together, yet that attitude what makes things difficult. I don't understand why people don't want to help other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by forbeskin I don't get it, so most of you people wouldn't pay extra taxes to benefit the greater good? Maybe that's why so many countries dislike us, because we think only of ourselves and don't ever see the big picture. Most of us just don't get it. As someone mentioned, who cares what other countries think. Ultimately, it's up to your own principles. You have a noble spirit. That's a good thing. Most Americans don't share your sense of "community". Pros and cons to both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Let's be fair, there are other ways to have health problems other than having unhealthy habits. Take a guy who is doing a morning jog and trips and falls and hits his head going into a coma. That guy will have just as much to pay in medical costs as someone who is morbidly over weight, or has a smoking problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I can dictate what my employees can and cant do. That's my rights as a business owner. No you can't. And no its not. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 Originally posted by MaddogCT No you can't. And no its not. :logo: Yes he can, after all he is a Dictator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.