Why not? Everyone else in California (Pacific Care) does.

Blue Cross has been doing this for some time. It is already in litigation.
BC had actually set up a separate department to go over people's application for insurance with a fine tooth comb to find any little thing they could use to cancel their coverage on a technicality and then would stick the patient with ALL the bills -- even ones paid prior -- often leaving cancer and surgery patients with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. It's not that people lied on their application for insurance it was always for something minor like having forgotten to write down like as a childe they had once been treated for asthma -- just anything that BC could find and use as an excuse to cancel the policy.

childe = child

I've been throwing this out there for 2 years now. Insurance of all other kinds have been hard at work at this game.

America is getting fucked over hardcore by insurance companies in every industry that insurance effects. Its bad enough the rates for medical typically go up 20% a year, but they are turning down an increasingly higher number of claims for fairly flimsy reasons.

People should get a break, and only be required to pay premiums after the fact. That would change the equation. Get the power to withold payment based on technicality and we'd see this shit clear up in a hurry. But as it is, the game is grossly rigged in they're favor.

Every American who thinks insurance companies are ripping us off should start screaming: "Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer Single Payer"

Until we take the profit out of denying coverage, raising rates, etc. we will never change anything about health care.

Danni,

Don't be so naive. Without the profit motive and scores of buearcrats to cancel policies on minor technical issues after collecting premiums for years the health industry will die.

These people have no one else but themselves to blame for forgetting they had a head cold at age 2 and failing to write that down on the application.

Just thinning of the herd. The thinning of the poorest of them.

yawn. great stock to own!

The Blues in Michigan runs an unending TV campaign that says they take EVERYONE. That they DENY NO ONE. They even run commercials with a guy who signed up with them (with a prior heart condition) just so the Blues would pay for his heart transplant. Then he praises the Blues for saving his life after he received a $500,000 life saving heart transplant. They use another family that has a daughter that had a rare cancer that surrounded her kidney. They accept her so she can be cured and she is. The family praises the Blues in the commercial. The Blues commercial says they do this because they are a non profit. Do all the Blues in various states represent themselves in this same manner?

Simple question:
If Congress has government health care, and they don't call it "socialized medicine," why can't Americans buy into the same system?

Silly you SAM, you musn't point out that our emperors and empresses have no clothes.

People should get a break, and only be required to pay premiums after the fact.

Posted by KnightHawk
* * * *

That's a great idea. Maybe we could do that with fire and flood insurance too. Or college tuition.

Whatever.

Oh Look, see the "Free Market Working".

What free market really means is you're on your own, within a Judicial System which favors wealth heavily. All the while the rich get richer, risk free, at your expense. Its a sweet deal for the few, the proud, the already rich.

Just because a private insurer makes an attempt to cut costs doesn't mean that government health care is the answer. How many fully-funded government programs can we point to as an example that government healthcare won't be subject to the same cost-cutting measures that take place in the private industy? Look at America's public schools. Look at our roads. Why would any of you think the government can do it any better than blue cross?

"Look at our roads. Why would any of you think the government can do it any better than blue cross?"

Same old rightwing game. Underfund programs like infrastructure repair and then, when a bridge collapses, start screaming that government is incompetent. If conservatives had their way we would be spending less, not more, on infrastructure.

Unfortunately, Bill, the reality is that there will always be at least some fiscal conservatives in our legislature that will force liberals to "compromise" when it comes to spending. It follows that the same budget cuts will occur with regard to a government healthcare system absent a 100% liberal legislature. You can argue all you want about whether the system would work under your ideal governmental conditions. Analyze it under our current framework and I don't see how you can deny that the same problems with Blue Cross would happen with a government system.

It follows that the same budget cuts will occur with regard to a government healthcare system absent a 100% liberal legislature. "

That's a good point, Joe. The same thing happened in the U.K. when the conservatives led by Thatcher tried to sabotage the National Health Service with budget cuts and privatization schemes.

Nevertheless, getting the insurance companies out of the game (single payer) will save billions as well as guarantee universal coverage. The problem with both Obama's and Clinton's plans are that neither are single-payer. They leave the parasitical middlemen involved.

There is no need for Insurance Companies. They add cost and reduce care. Our most expensive, less effective care is due to their having their fingers in the cookie jar. They cause Doctors to double their staffs, not to care for patients, just to make sure they get paid by the fucking Insurance Companies. The additional time burden they place on the patient is a uniquely American big story. They are not the only problem, but they are definately the worst, milking 10-40% of every health care dollar. They are skimming the system, using techniques perfected by the Mafia, CIA and Conservative Think Tanks. Nothing more to their role than that.

If anything, their plans introduce another middleman - the government. They have employees to pay just like any private company. At least with single-payer, you replace one middleman with another that will supposedly do a better job. Having the government AND an insurance company between you and your healthcare is the worst of both worlds.

"There is no need for Insurance Companies."

Well that's stupid. Without them you'd be stuck paying your entire medical bill instead of a monthly premium.

"They add cost and reduce care."

I foresee the government doing the same thing if and when they take "the insurer's" place.

"Having the government AND an insurance company between you and your healthcare is the worst of both worlds."

It certainly is inferior to single-payer, but certainly better than the current system, in which 40 million or so do not have any coverage.

You know I just got through watching a commercial by Blue Cross declaring that Families have enough worry about their kids healthCare to decide what was a covered event or not. The Lady giving the commercial said Leave that up to Them at Blue Cross Blue Shield. Boy when they fuck up they sure do love trying to cover their asses. What shmucks.

Larry Mohr

Sorry Joe, but England, France, Canada, and 34 other Industrialized Nations get more for less by using a Government adminstrated single payer system. The money they save not arguing over bills is at least as much as the fucking Insurance Companies are skimming. That means they are saving 20-80% of every health care dollar before they begin negotiations with the fucking Drug companies. While BushCo is quick to deny benefits to our injured soldiers, he has steadfastly refused to ask for volume discounts for Medicare patients. For a Government program to work this kind of corruption must also be eliminated.

"The money they save not arguing over bills is at least as much as the fucking Insurance Companies are skimming."

You pretend as though the government wouldn't "skim" anything. How will they pay the thousands of employees required to administer such a system? Will they all work for free?

"How will they pay the thousands of employees required to administer such a system? Will they all work for free?"

There are countless studies that show administrative costs decrease dramatically with single payer.

Hey what is the administrative costs of Medicare?? Isn't it like 2 percent or something close to that.

Larry Mohr

Health Care reform can begin with Large Corporations and Local, County, State and the Federal Government paying medical costs directly instead of insuring their workers. There is a reason that Insurance Companies do Insurance: it is profitable! So an enormous portion of the high cost of health care is simply because Insurance Companies are charging high premiums to get high profits. If entities with large numbers of employees chose to pay medical costs directly to hospitals and doctors, then the middle man Insurance Companies would be cut out and costs would begin to drop. No doubt, insurance companies might be giving kick-backs to the company ceo's and government officials to encourage these unnecessary costs and this would have to accounted for in terms of making reform a reality. But, the fact remains that the information age has reduced costs for consumers and businesses by cutting out unnecessary, profit gouging middlemen. This fact has not yet been able to penetrate the Health Care Insurance Industry. Hopefully, soon, though!

Guest123, most large corporations and large city, state, and cty agencies already do this through Self-Insurance. They figure it's cheaper to put the premiums into their own pot for medical use. Ususally these organizations pay insurance companies a fee for administrative duties and the potential to get lower contracted rates. Thay also pay for overdraw insurance, which covers costs in the event of spending too much on employee health. Most companies over 2,000 people, however, are already self insured and avoid paying all the premiums to insurance companies.

Careful when you talk about cutting out the "middle man" of insurance companies. One role insurance companies play that is unique to middlemen is that they mitigate or spread out the risk.

Bartimus-
You wouldn't be employed in the insurance game, would you?

LOL, nope, I am actually a student getting my Masters in Public Administration, emphasizing in Health Policy :) Shoot, if Hillary or Obama get elected, maybe I will have a job come Spring 2009!

Seriously though, while I know the insurance companies and "free market solutions" aren't anywhere close to being perfect, lots of facts regarding single payer systems are glossed over and ignored. I don't always like insurance companies, but I do think they're a necessary evil.

Bartimus-
In anything resembling a "free market", the insurance racketeers would be the main course, with potatoes or chips on the side.

Betelg, question for you - why is it that insurance has only recently become such a big issue? Admittedly, I'm still pretty young, so correct me if it's always been a big issue. To me, though, it seems like the debate over universal healthcare has really flared up over the past 15 or so years. Why did the system seem to work before 1993 when Hillary first started her campaign for universal hc?

Bartimus-
Hillary Clinton, that avowed Maoist demon of talk radio, never even suggested that the insurance companies be cut out of the deal.

True abut Hillary. And if I'm reading her policy right, she is still for regulating insurance companies, not getting rid of them. However, she is still for universal hc by using that regulation to sell insurance to all, plus use additional gov't funding for the poor (expanded MCare/MCaid). My question earlier was more general - has this issue been around for longer than since the 90's? And if not, what made the system work previous to then?

Bartimus-
Look up the stats for bankruptcies due to medical expences and get back to me on that.

(I'm with you that it's probably a manufactured plot by socialists designed to bring the West to its knees, much like the whole euro-socialst "global warming" hoax.)

Betelg, what's with the strawmen?!??! Not once have I called anything a manufactured ploy, brought up socialists, or even mentioned global warming. However, I see that you have failed to mention or respond to any of the questions or facts, yes, facts, I listed and linked in my 1:31 AM and later posts. I recognize that the current system is not working. However, should we run to the nanny government every time something doesn't work? I am simply stating that the single payer system many people so loudly applaud has several severe issues that are never discussed or addressed. How, for example, would you even pay for a single payer system? Many of the other Western systems are billions of dollars in debt and failing!

Again, I am simply bringing up the point that single payer systems are not perfect either.

By the way, 1/2 of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses (2005). Why isn't the government doing anything about the other 1/2 that's going bankrupt? Why aren't you DEMANDING government intervention?

Bull's eye.

Damn, I'm good.

"Many of the other Western systems are billions of dollars in debt and failing!"

LOL. Are you for real?

ah, a Libertarian. Did you vote for Bush, or were you old enough?

Bart-
Since you are obviously young and in the throes of a simplistic ideology, I'll spell out my snark:

It's a good thing that the US isn't "billions of dollars in debt and failing"

Betelg, I understand the point you're making. As I stated earlier:

"I recognize that the current system is not working."
Posted by bartimus at 2008-02-13 04:06 AM

I am just not convinced a single payer system is the way to go yet. No one that supports it ever brings up any of the negatives associated with the single payer system. Additionally, all these supporters ever do is deride the current system without realizing some of the positives. The figures are probably not available, but I wonder how many people have NOT had to declare bankruptcy because their health insurance actually worked. But that's never talked about. I was simply trying to note that the issue is not quite so clear and that both sides have pros and cons.

Bartimus-
I suggest that you embrace the system that currently promises you a job and income, but I think you've got that part down.

Go see the movie sicko and get even more pissed off about this country.

I do not work for any insurance company nor am I defending them: but there is something to be said in their defense. Some people do abuse their insurance and avail of it for any little complaint, piling up the bills --- making the doctors happy and the insurance companies mad.

And ah, how much does an aspirin cost if administered in the doctor's office? 600% more than over the counter?

Europeans pay ONE HALF, per capita, what we do for medical csre. They mostly have single payer systems. Why is it that the richest country in the world cannot support a national healthcare system but countries like Iceland can?

Fact: The chairman of HealthSouth retired with a $1.1 BILLION pension. Your money at work.

Time for a change.

Beware: Concierge Medicine -- the "new" kind of doctoring

I just got hit with the news my doctor (who has been our family primary care physician for over 20 years) has decided to change his practice to "concierge medical care" from now on .

In short, that means that any of his long time regular patients who want to keep him as their doctor must now pay $1800 a year ($150 a month) out of their own pocket and they get really nothing more than they had before except a little more face time with the doctor if they so desire. Big deal. Otherwise his long time patients will have to leave and find a new doctor.

Out of his current 2600 patients, the "concierge group" he has signed an agreement with only allows him to keep 600 patients -- those who are willing to cough up the extra $1800 a year "retainer fee." If there are two members in your family you're looking at $3600 a year ($300 a month) and that's hard cash on top of your regular health insurance costs.

This "concierge" fee is one of the new things on the medical health care horizon and is only being done in a few states so far. I just wish my doctor hadn't been one of the pioneers and decided to sign up.

With Bush having slashed Medicare funding by the billions of dollars since he's been in office (gotta give it to his war instead) my doctor said the physicians and hospitals are receiving less and less in fees for medical services reimbursed by Medicare and many primary care physicians now have to heavily increase their patient workload/numbers and work long hours to just break even. He was working 70 hours a week and said it was either go with the concierge style of medicine (seeing only 600 patients instead of 2800 and charging each patient $1800 a year) or he would just retire. He said more and more physicians his age (mid-50's) are now retiring because it just isn't worth the long hours at less and less reimbursement by Medicare.

Can't blame him but still it's screwed for him to do that to his patients especially when some are quite elderly and infirm making it hard for them to change physicians easily and try and get a new doctor (who's even willing to accept new Medicare patients!) who understands their medical condition.

After getting this news, the Democrats affordable health care plans are looking better by the minute.

Where do we go now?

BCBS was supposed to be best-of-breed.

Concierge medicine --- $1800 a year. Five years = $9000.

How about opening another saving/medical account and faithfully put the money there, and accumulate it for out of pocket medical bills? Instead of doling free money for the haughty doctor.

How many fully-funded government programs can we point to as an example that government healthcare won't be subject to the same cost-cutting measures that take place in the private industy?

Yes, because we all know how unrelentless and drastic our health insurance premiums have been reduced in the last two decades.

Big deal. Otherwise his long time patients will have to leave and find a new doctor.


Welcome to the health care "industry".

I guess the HMO's weren't reimbursing him enough to keep him in new Mercedes and on the golf course.

Why is it that the richest country in the world cannot support a national healthcare system but countries like Iceland can?


Because then we couldn't afford enormous tax cuts for millionaires and a never ending occupation of an oil rich country.

Oh wait, we can't afford that now either.

Why isn't the government doing anything about the other 1/2 that's going bankrupt?

What would you propose they do about someone whose spouse died or they lost their job and had to declare bankruptcy?

Besides Dumbya signed the bankruptcy "reform" [welfare to credit card companies] bill to fix the nasty blight of people who could not pay their credit cards off. That was supposed to magically fix all bankruptcies and get the deadbeats out of the system.

Guess what? It didn't. Could it be that bankruptcy laws were not as abused as the neocons led the public to beleive?

TAKITEZ

How about opening another saving/medical account and faithfully put the money there, and accumulate it for out of pocket medical bills? Instead of doling free money for the haughty doctor.

Posted by takitez at 2008-02-13 07:19 A

You mean pay for medical care costs out of your own pocket? I'm not a multi-millionaire. The FIRST major operation you have would wipe you out unless you had at least $100,000 in your HSA.

As for putting the money in an HSA to cover the concierge cost ($1800 a year) demanded now by my doctor wouldn't work because you have to pay that money up front every year or you are without a physician -- at least with the concierge style doctor. Even if I saved the $1800 in an HSA for the next year's cost what good would that do me? I still have to pay the $1800 out of my pocket. The piddly bit of tax deduction wouldn't do me any good. I'm not in a tax bracket where it would help me any.

You must be a younger guy 'cause you don't seem to realize the cost of medical care. My Mom had an infection a few years back and was in the hospital for just over one week -- $25 grand. That was just ths hosptial stay. Then you have the lab work, the different specialists, and on and on. Later she had two hip replacements and a stroke -- thousands of dollars more! She had health insurance policies to cover all the costs so we didn't pay out of pocket except for the monthly insurance premiums but if we did have to pay those thousands of dollars ourselves -- forget it!

HSA's are only for the rich (who can keep money in it and claim tax writeoffs) or the very young and very healthy. If you have even one auto accident or later on a stroke or something? You would not be able to afford to pay for it out of an HSA you had put aside for yourself even if you might have put every single cent you had ever made from the day you started to work into the HSA. That's assuming you've got a job paying under six figures a year. It only takes ONE major accident or other major medical incident and you are wiped out.

That's why I laugh when the Republicans tell everybody to get an HSA instead of health insurance and they can "write it off" or get the money "tax free" and use the money they have saved in the HSA to pay for the medical care. What a joke. You end up saving maybe $1000 in taxes in your HSA but you have to pay out tens of thousands out of your own pocket and that's suppose to be a good deal? Nope.

Much as the Republicans are always saying "personal responsiblity" and "HSA" if you don't have health insurance that pays for your medical costs you are taking a very costly chance. I don't think Cheney laid out a dime from an HSA to pay "out of pocket" for his pacemaker. He made sure his costs were covered by the government and so has Hush and all their familiy members.

This is why govt mandated healthcare is coming. The simple facts are that unless you are enrolled in an employee/employer sponsered healthcare plan you can be denied coverage, your rates can go up at will if you use the coverage, and you can be cancelled at any time for any reason. Rates go up as you age also. So you can forget about the advice and ignorance of conservative talk shows hosts that say just buy coverage yourself. The fact is the millionairs in this country are trying to hold on to their money using the backs of the less fortunate. It's the rich in this country who have farmed good jobs to leave the country under the guise of corporate profitability , encouraged anti union activities, and lowered the wage threshold for all concerned. We have been sold a bill of goods under conservative brain washing and hopefully in 2008 that will be ended.

Well, private insurers (like BCBS) often pay full or higher negotiated rates ranging from 105% to 120% of cost for hospitals. Often this cost is passed to the consumer. Isn't it interesting that, as Medicare/Caid usage has increased, so have premiums?

I have Bluecross/Blueshield and this most definitely is not the case with my plan. For a typical procedure or doctor's appointment, they usually only pay between 30-50% (and often less) what they are billed. For example, below is an itemized invoice for blood work I had done for a routine physical:

Service----------------------Total Billed------------Payment Amount
Medical/Physician/Other------
$8.00--------------------$5.00
Medical/Physician/Other------
$107.50------------------$8.80
Medical/Physician/Other------
$64.25------------------ $8.50
Medical/Physician/Other------
$62.00-------------------
$11.80
Medical/Physician/Other------
$51.25-------------------$7.50
Medical/Physician/Other------
$57.25-------------------$8.10

Total Amount-----------------
$350.25------------------
$49.70

As can be seen, the hospital charged my insurance $350.25 but my insurance only paid $49.70, or about 15 percent. In all honesty, I don't know which number is more reasonable for blood work. But I do know there is something very, very wrong with the numbers being so out-of-whack. The system is definitely broken when the only people who have to pay the full amount are the one's who are least able to pay.

Sorry for the above formatting screw up. It did look OK during the preview, I swear! :-)

That's why I laugh when the Republicans tell everybody to get an HSA instead of health insurance and they can "write it off" or get the money "tax free" and use the money they have saved in the HSA to pay for the medical care. What a joke. You end up saving maybe $1000 in taxes in your HSA but you have to pay out tens of thousands out of your own pocket and that's suppose to be a good deal? Nope.

Actually, the issues regarding an HSA aren't that simple. My office is in the process of transitioning to a combination of an HSA/HDHP, and it isn't all that bad. Our monthly premiums are only about 1/4th of what they were, and our company now contributes the difference of what they used to pay into our HSA. Even though our deductible is rather high ($2500), it is offset by my employer's monthly contribution. The laws are actually pretty lenient with HSA contributions, as the money is contributed pre-tax and all growth (ours is administered like an IRA) is tax free. Money can be withdrawn for anything medical related (doctors visits, prescriptions, over-the-counter drugs, band aids, etc...), and when you hit retirement age it can be rolled over into your IRA. There isn't any kind of vesting schedule for employer contributions.

Our HDHP, for what it's worth, isn't too bad either. All preventive care is covered, and once our deductible is hit, everything is covered 100%, with no out-of-pocket maximums or anything else to worry about. Our only concern right now is whether or not it is legal to use our HSA to cover prescriptions imported from Canada.

In all honesty, my spouse and I were going to drop our old company health plan (rates had doubled in the past three years) and switch to our own HSA/HDHP. There were numerous plans available for much less than we pay for car insurance (< $100/month) with deductibles ranging from $2-$5k. Yeah, the deductible may be rather high but it's way better than paying ten's of thousands if you're unlucky enough to need hospitalization.

US #37 in Health care. The rest is bullshit.

So far, so good! Just imagine if it were the government which was coordinating with physicians and care giving professionals, in order to determine who does and who does not receive care.

Well, if it comes to socialization of health care under government control, such activity would occur. For example, is there anyone here who has any doubts that Agent Orange exposure in some veterans is causing them to suffer various conditions which are destroying their health?

"Sorry, G.I., no can recongize that/those conditions -- it might be Chernobyl ... not us (US) ..."

That will morph into:

"Sorry, citizen, the Trojan disaster can't be distinguished from the Hanford massacre, and such contitions can't be treated because so treating the millions would put our nation back into the Dark Ages, before universal healthcare ..."

Maybe the remaining 'Nam veterans should arm themselves and march on Washington, eh? Isn't that the 'town' where the Democratics have reduced the military budget every single time they've been in charge in Congress?

So, UP THE REVOLUTION!!!

Can't wait to see the freebie commie wannabes waiting in line for the kidney that will NEVER be approved for their economic status /level /education /withholdingamount /ignorance /whatever postion of elitism ...

But I do know there is something very, very wrong with the numbers being so out-of-whack.

The sad reality is that hospitals survive on the reimbursement rate from the HMO's but profit immensely when someone without insurance comes in and pays the full amount.

Why else do you think the health care industry is against universal care.

Who actually pays the full amount, surely not illegals.

exept 7catch22, those that come in usally pay small monthly payments which do not help the hospital.

That definitely sucks. The thing about insurance companies is that they completely disrupt supply and demand.

Imagine that there are no insurance companies and that everyone has to pay out-of-pocket for care. In most cases, prices will be set to a level that the market can bear relative to supply meaning doctors and hospitals will find ways to make their services affordable so they can keep money coming in (either that or they would only treat wealthy people, which is a possibility). This is not a perfect system by any means, but the only upward pressure on prices would be due to a lack of demand (or perhaps uncanny greed on the part of doctors) and I'd argue that prices would have little effect on that demand in this case. When people get sick, people get sick. A price tag doesn't change that (in fact, as we've seen, it can make it worse in the long run).

Now imagine that everyone has rich uncles who graciously offer to cover the family's medical expenses. What the market can bear has suddenly become a much larger number in terms of price. With all these rich uncles doling out cash for treatment, doctors see no need to negotiate prices with patients and the few of us that don't have rich uncles end up stiffed with rich uncle prices.

Then we have insurance companies. Not only do they play the role of the rich uncle, removing direct negotiations and incentives to lower costs, they also introduce a further overhead (staffing and operations costs as well as profit motive) to the price equation. Its no wonder why we see 10-20% per year increases in the cost of medicine. These companies do little else than create a positive feedback loop with prices and we, the consumers, get screwed with rising premiums and, in this case, incentives for the insurance companies to not provide coverage.

This is exactly the sort of thing that a well-managed, single-payer system can avoid. With a full-coverage mandate (everyone is covered for everything minus unnecessary cosmetic treatments) and a computerized audit trail, we can use a public fund to pay private doctors and hospitals given reasonable mandates for patient care (a patient's bill of rights). The industry itself remains private and, barring a few stipulations, is free to operate in their own best interests, competing to provide a product that furthers their bottom lines.

Incentives can be formulated to provide bonuses for doctors and hospitals that promote preventative care -- getting their patients to quick smoking, exercise, or eat healthier -- which will drive down costs in the long-term.

Why this all isn't just obvious, common-sense stuff is beyond me. I wish we had a candidate promoting this (of course, they'd be against the big money of big insurance) and its disappointing that we do not.

Well-managed...LOLOLOL yeah, that is going to happen. Wait, let's have the US gov manage it.....

retnluvnit: who's to say that the fund can't be managed privately as a government-sponsored corporation? Or even like a mutual fund?

Actually, my preference is to see the single-payer idea implemented state by state rather than by the federal govt. but of course, if there's any government involved, fuck it, right? Because at that point, we already have the best healthcare system, right? Cuz all those foreigners are coming here to get treatment, right? Because the quality of care can only get worse, right? Because its socialism, yeah? Bad, bad, bad!!!

Where's your bright idea, your solution to the problem, shit-fer-brains?

Tadowe

You would have a point except that every other industrialized nation on the planet proves you wrong. Oh yeah--and this.

France #1 in Health care.

US #37 in Health care.

Bob says, "You would have a point except that every other industrialized nation on the planet proves you wrong. Oh yeah--and this. France #1 in Health care. US #37 in Health care."

You know I'm not much on such statistics, Bob, and since they can be manipulated in any number of ways and for whatever partisan purpose. I'm actually a bit surprised to see a cynic like you with such a slavish attitude towards 'figures' manipulated from the start!?!

I'm not personally afraid of federal healthcare, at all. My first career was in the military, and so their freedom to test me for whatever substance, condition, or symptom they cared to was okay by me ...

How about you? You don't mind that your hair, nails, blood, urine and other bodily fluids, bits-and-pieces will be subject to testing whether you give permission or not? How about being told that you quit using this or that substance, food, vitamin or mineral they tell you to stop? How about being denied care because you take part in forbidden activities?

You face that with universal, federally controlled health care ...

"Sorry, Bob, but your blood pressure is still high -- we'll be testing to see that you aren't continuing to eat the chocolate that is clogging your arteries ... and if we see any (ANY) indication of drug usage ... we will be forced to notify the DEA."

How about you? You don't mind that your hair, nails, blood, urine and other bodily fluids, bits-and-pieces will be subject to testing whether you give permission or not? How about being told that you quit using this or that substance, food, vitamin or mineral they tell you to stop? How about being denied care because you take part in forbidden activities?

You face that with universal, federally controlled health care ...


No reason to think you wouldn't get the same from private care too. Sure it will come down a bit different end result will still be the same.

Bug golly gee. Hillary was going to fix this when Willy was president. She promised that she would. She never did anything!!!!! Health care is still just as screwed up as it was then, if not worse.

Why should we give her a second shot at it? No way!

Blue Cross are a bunch of crooks! It's not about the patient. It is about making money!

I have Blue Cross. Humana is much worse.

And don't even ask me about AIG aircraft insurance.

Who actually pays the full amount, surely not illegals.

Posted by retnluvnit
=========================
No not illegals, it's us through higher premiums. The premiums we pay are far higher than they would be if everyone paid into the system . Furthermore health care would provide more assisstance to ailments in their early stages when they are more manageable than waiting for them to reach critical stage and far higher costs.
Everyone here needs to get off this idea that if the govt became involved suddenly there would be a whole bunch of doctors and nurses suddenly employed by the US govt. That simply does not have to be.
How much simple can this concept be? If everyone paid into the system then everyone has access to health care. No one is denied coverage now and no one will be denied coverage later.If there is that much more money in the system then there is that much more opportunity for competition which the conservatards keep saying what is needed. I spent three hours in an emergency room recently and I can tell you that if I didn't have to be there I wouldn't. No one will be abusing the system like the conservatards keep telling us. For those that have health care now do you see them going to the doctor every chance they get? No. So why would you think that the system would suddenly be abused if everyone had access to health care?

Let me put this subject in a new light. I consider access to health care to be on par with the ability to have water, transportation, food electricity etc and any other commodity needed to sustain life and normal social benefits.
Years ago many of these items were "regulated" which means came under the eye of the govt. The govt determined whether or not a price increase was justified or not and investigated wrongdoing and poor service. Somehow all these utilities , trucking companies, communications companies all managed to survive and if you know anyone who retired from them lived a pretty good life. Furthermore if you know anyone who lived while receiving services from them will readily admit that the services were excellent and very affordable. The shareholders were somehow "backward" and didn't have any qualms about holding their stock. Now ask those who have phone lines in their home what the price is and what the service is like. Remember when those rotary phones lasted forever? What about water ? Have you been paying through the nose suddenly since water companies have been deregulated? The same scenario is repeated with the airlines, trucking etc. Presently the health care industry is not regulated and what we find is that a commodity which is needed to maintain healthful living is being restricted to many and denied to many more. Based on real history I think if you asked those who lived though regulation and deregulation they would choose regulation hands down. Who really cares if there is no "competition" if health care can be distributed less expensively and for more people? The bottom line is that "deregulation" was supposed to lower costs and provide better service for everyone by letting the "free market" prevail and all we have seen in those industries that were deregulated is higher prices , and worse service.

I have Blue Cross. Humana is much worse.

Last year, when my company was investigating new health plans, the big fear was that we were going to switch to Humana.

As crappy as Blue Cross is, it seems to still be the best out there.

I know of a few places here where I am at that will NOT take Humana. They claim that they hardly ever get paid by them. Insurance is a racket and unfortunately at times without it You wind up in a casket.

Larry Mohr

Larry

In 2000 I had achilles surgery. Humana was so crappy I would have made out better if I had no insurance.

Fees go way down when you pay cash up front.

Private insurance sucks. And Hillery wants to force all of us to give money to those scum.

"As crappy as Blue Cross is, it seems to still be the best out there."

Posted by katieberry

But Humana has the lowest monthly payments!
Of course no insurance at all is a better deal.

There aught to be a Law(Probably IS one but it's not being enforced) That States that What the Insurance Companies Declare that they will cover at the the time of the Underwriting must be upheld or they forfeit their license to sell insurance. I hate Insurance Companies.

Larry Mohr

Larry: Medical insurance should be banned... period. Its extremely inefficient and does nothing but drive up costs. No amount of regulation will change that.

Fees go way down when you pay cash up front.

Private insurance sucks. And Hillery wants to force all of us to give money to those scum.

Posted by Zatoichi
================
I know first hand this is not the case. I have seen bills paid in cash and I have seen bills paid by pvt insurance. The bills from pvt insurance show what the procedure cost and what the insurance has paid. In almost all cases the hospital or doctor "accepted" what the insurance company paid which in most cases was substantially less than what the quoted charges were. Any other outstanding balance was the deductable that the user was agreed to pay. I have yet to see where there is a two tier system of payments by doctors or hospitals in which those paying cash somehow get a reduced fee as normal operating procedure.
As to the other comments regarding "Humana" under govt regulation these incidents would surly come into investigation and correction if they hoped to still be in business.

apparatchik ; I have health care because i worked hard all my life. I should not support welfare pieces of shit nor illegals or idiots like you , people who are stuck in their parents basement.

apparatchik ; I have health care because i worked hard all my life. I should not support welfare pieces of shit nor illegals or idiots like you , people who are stuck in their parents basement.

Things would be so much easier if the world was black and white.

As it is now, if somebody becomes sick or injured and does not have insurance, they'll wind up going to the doctor/hospital eventually, and legally, they'll have to receive some kind of evaluation or treatment. All of this will have to be paid for some how; either the office will charge those with insurance more to offset the cost and/or write off the loss on their taxes, which we'll all pay for eventually.

For those of us with insurance, we're stuck paying more because we have to subsidize those w/out. For those of us lucky enough to be healthy, have good genes, and also have insurance, we still have to subsidize the unhealthy people on our group plan. This is because insurance companies distribute the risk within group plans and it is illegal for employers to offer different plans/premiums to different employees based on their health. So, as a skinny, non-smoker, who works out regularly, with a healthy diet, I pay the exact same monthly premium as everyone else in my office.

Prior to Medicare/Medicaid we had charity hospitals run by the churches, and family doctors frequently discounted services or provided additional services like outpatient surgery at no extra cost.

Possibly the biggest flaw in the system from a financial standard is the schedule for services and "usual and customary fees."

Not only has it added a lot of paperwork, but the itemized breakdown allowed doctors to game the system.

Just as bad, a doctor who accepts either program can not discount services below that paid through Medi-C/A.

The doctor is allowed to charge more, but not less. Naturally the "usual and customary fees" have continued to climb as the AMA has tried to tighten qualifications for medical schools and constrain the number of doctors practicing in the US.

We need more doctors and an educational system that does a better job of teaching people to care for themselves. The ERs are clogged with people with a bad case of the sniffles. We'd do better with small clinics staffed with a nurse practitioners and a doctor on call.

The biggest hurdle will always be a lack of common identity and purpose. Do you really care if people go untreated, or receive no follow up on an injury? IOWs, if you have yours, do you care if others have theirs?

reznwerks: you're a real piece of work, aren't you? I work hard, too... and I probably have the best insurance money can buy through my employer. Yeah, I've got mine but I'm certainly not a "fuck-the-rest-of-you" inhuman, worthless piece of shit like you.

Illegal immigration and "welfare pieces of shit" are separate issues that need to be tackled separately. Their effects are not exclusively in the realm of health care so I'm not sure why people like you use it as an excuse not to reform health care.