 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Mothers / September 2007i had to laugh
I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is it people call it health care?] today. Some study said over 40% of Americans would like to have free health 'care' [aka insurance]. Um, how do they think the docs, hospitals, pharmacies, nurses, and so forth will get paid? Oh, yeah, the Government will pay for it, right? Um, sure. And, where does the government get its money from, people? More taxes on the 'rich'. Yeah. And so legislation will be written to totally absolutely exclude all but the top oh ten percent from paying for health insurance for the other 90%? Someone's smoking wacky backy in their pipes again! -Aula > I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is it > people call it health care?] today. Some actually *mean* health care (i.e., single provider system vs. single payer system). Of course, most play fairly fast and loose with the terminology. > Some study said over 40% of Americans > would like to have free health 'care' [aka insurance]. Um, how do they think > the docs, hospitals, pharmacies, nurses, and so forth will get paid? Oh, > yeah, the Government will pay for it, right? Um, sure. And, where does the > government get its money from, people? More taxes on the 'rich'. Yeah. Eh, I'm not quite so cynical as that. I think people are quite well aware that the money will come from somewhere. Not everyone is particularly clear on the details, or whether it would be insurance or health care that would be provided, but they do realize that the money is going to come from somewhere, most likely taxes. > And so legislation will be written to totally absolutely exclude all but the > top oh ten percent from paying for health insurance for the other 90%? > Someone's smoking wacky backy in their pipes again! Well, ultimately the money to pay the doctors/clinics/ hospitals/etc. will come from somewhere. It's legitimate to discuss the various options for where it might come from (fee for service, insurer, single payer, etc.). If the goal is to create nearly universal access to health care, *someone* will be paying for those who can't afford it themselves, whether that's through taxes, higher insurance premiums for some, etc. It's also legitimate to discuss the role of profit in the system. It's about time the issues were put on the table in plain language so that people can make decisions about what they're willing and not willing to commit to. Best wishes, Ericka >I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is it >people call it health care?] today. Some study said over 40% of Americans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >top oh ten percent from paying for health insurance for the other 90%? >Someone's smoking wacky backy in their pipes again! All insurance is, after all, is a group of people paying in to one big fund to spread their risks. So they can pay a few thousand each year, against the need of a few, and the finite possibility for very many to need, to have something like a $200,000.00 surgery, or die. I have no objection to spreading that risk over the whole population, with us all paying in, whether we call it "insurance" or "taxes". Indeed I think we have to. Banty >>I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is >>it [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > we > have to. While all you say is true you miss my point - it is not free. someone is paying for it, and that someone is always us, be it through private payment or through taxes. It is not free and the spreading common use of the term 'free health care' is obscuring that fact. Aula > While all you say is true you miss my point - it is not free. someone is > paying for it, and that someone is always us, be it through private payment > or through taxes. It is not free and the spreading common use of the term > 'free health care' is obscuring that fact. Seems odd anyone is doing that, as I haven't heard anyone in a position to *do* anything about it (i.e., legislators or other politicians) talk about "free health care." Mostly, they talk about "universal access" or "affordable access" or something like that. Best wishes, Ericka > Seems odd anyone is doing that, as I haven't heard anyone > in a position to *do* anything about it (i.e., legislators or > other politicians) talk about "free health care." Mostly, they > talk about "universal access" or "affordable access" or something > like that. Yeah, well, you know those poorly created polls. Questions are misleading, answers are worded in such a way to force responses to a particular direction, whatever. I suspect it was that type of a poll, which adds to my amusedly frustrated view of the thing. It is almost designed to get people to thinking they want or need a particular thing. As an aside - I am beginning to suspect the upcoming Presidential election will not turn on Iraq or war in general, but health insurance in one way shape or manner. Aula > As an aside - I am beginning to suspect the upcoming Presidential election > will not turn on Iraq or war in general, but health insurance in one way > shape or manner. I think the Iraq war will be a big deal in the election, but I think you're absolutely right that health care is going to be another big issue, and maybe a determinative one. Best wishes, Ericka > While all you say is true you miss my point - it is not free. someone is > paying for it, and that someone is always us, be it through private > payment or through taxes. It is not free and the spreading common use of > the term 'free health care' is obscuring that fact. This is my biggest gripe with this entire discussion/argument. It is not "FREE". It may be "Free To You." if you are paying nothing into the pot, but taking care and medication out. But ultimately there is someone's pocket that is paying for it. I think that many see the cash as coming from the great "They" and not as having anything to do with them personally. It's sad that the system is so very misunderstood and taken for granted. Cindi > Aula On Sep 27, 10:05 pm, "Cindi - HappyMamatoThree" <lonnicusuoTAKEME...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > While all you say is true you miss my point - it is not free. someone is > > paying for it, and that someone is always us, be it through private [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Aula I sincerely believe that most folks are interested in access to health care which is affordable. I agree that not a lot of people are clued into how they, as taxpayers (or as 'future taxpayers') are currently subsidizing the two primary government insurance programs (Medicare and Medicaid), even if said taxpayer s ineligible for insurance or finds it unaffordable. It's sort of like Social Security writ large. As someone who worked 'shadowing' financial counselors at many hospitals, I don't believe that people who lack insurance and/or have coverage limits, or pre-existing exclusions take any of this for granted. YMMV. Caledonia > I sincerely believe that most folks are interested in access to health > care which is affordable. I agree that not a lot of people are clued [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > coverage limits, or pre-existing exclusions take any of this for > granted. YMMV. I agree. Working for the State in the welfare office we are directly involved in the application for Medicaid, SCHIP and other state-sponsored health insurance programs. So many of those applying don't seem to have any understanding that the insurance is paid for by tax payers. When the Feds put in the requirement a year ago that people applying for health insurance who have kids who's other parent is not in the household must consent to allowing the government pursue that person to provide health insurance through their employment to the kids [if available] through the Office of Child Support quite a few were taken aback. Starting Monday our Great Generous State is going to accept applications for a whole new set of health insurance for people who make well above the Federal poverty limits. The actual programs either help the person pay their premiums for employer sponsored insurance or buy a state-purchased insurance [two providers available] if that is either not available or economically less expensive than helping pay the employer sponsored premiums. You better believe that the state legislature and the news media have *not* touted it as having any cost to the tax payers, even when it became clear the Feds might well not pass the SCHIP bill. It's only been 'state' monies and for some reason a lot of folks don't then realize it means their pocket or their neighbor's pocket. It seems most folks only realize that when it comes to local school and town budgets and I wonder if that is because they see the direct relationship between local taxes and their ability to impact on their levels. Aula > It seems most folks only realize that when it comes to local school > and town budgets and I wonder if that is because they see the direct > relationship between local taxes and their ability to impact on their > levels. Maybe it's a local thing, or maybe the folks you are serving, or maybe it's just that I live around boatloads of policy wonks, but around here people are quite clear where the money is/would be coming from. I don't hear any friends talking about "free health care," only whether it's our responsibility as a nation to fund health care or access to health care for all, or whether there will be efficiencies to be gained by one or another proposed system, or what have you. Best wishes, Ericka >>>I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is >>>it [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >or through taxes. It is not free and the spreading common use of the term >'free health care' is obscuring that fact. I wouldn't make quite that much of it. People say "I don't buy books, they're free from the library", for example. Well, of course they're not free TNSTAAFL and all that. The local lake beach is free for town residents but neighboring town residents pay x amount per adult, etc. They mean free at the point of delivery. Banty > I wouldn't make quite that much of it. People say "I don't buy books, > they're [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of > delivery. It is unfortunate that the term muddies the conversation enough for many so they come to view whatever 'it' is as without any cost to them but perhaps their time, and they may only give that begrudgingly to boot! Aula > I have no objection to spreading that risk over the whole population, with us > all paying in, whether we call it "insurance" or "taxes". Indeed I think we > have to. I don't think the terminology matters, but sometimes they actually use different terminology to mean different things ;-) For instance, there's a big difference between the government providing the health care funded with tax revenues and the government providing or sponsoring some sort of insurance program. Of course, I doubt the former has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, so for all practical intents and purposes the debate probably is only about the scope and funding of some sort of insurance plan. Best wishes, Ericka > I just had to laugh at the survey results about health insurance [why is it > people call it health care?] today. Some study said over 40% of Americans [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Aula What's your suggestion, then, for increasing coverage for a population (using CHIP as an example, since it's in the news) which will always rely upon 'someone' subsidizing their care? Or is it just a pipe dream? [I frankly think that what GM is proposing is a wake-up call -- if manufacturing doesn't pick up in the US, given the weak dollar, I predict we'll be hearing a great deal more about how to fund health insurance (and extend health care) over the next few months....Right now, the focus is on retirees -- but they're a safe 'playing ground' as the Medi/Medi insurance (aka the government) has them pretty well covered. The big question will be whether GM's move will start a groundswell to unlink employment and health insurance for those folks who aren't retired.] Caledonia > What's your suggestion, then, for increasing coverage for a population > (using CHIP as an example, since it's in the news) which will always [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > groundswell to unlink employment and health insurance for those folks > who aren't retired.] Wow, you must be channeling me! In fact this is exactly what husband and I were discussing in the car yesterday. I don't think it would be feasible [although perhaps desirable] to turn back time to get insurance out of the mix pretty much entirely, so I'm not sure what the next best cure is. I must admit being more than a tad envious of those who qualify for the various State sponsored insurances here in Vermont [several of which do require premiums from those covered, btw, as well as some sort of co-pays, all based on income and number of individuals in the household], but then I look at the coverage and am glad I've got what I've got through my employer, which also costs me about 7K a year after I've met deductibles and before OTC costs. Aula > I just had to laugh at the survey results about health > insurance [why is it people call it health care?] today. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > insurance for the other 90%? Someone's smoking wacky backy > in their pipes again! what i don't get is why *anyone* thinks the "top 10%" should be paying for everyone else. what ever happened to self sufficiency? the current health system is "broken" because of the huge *for profit* heathcare business, and the stupid laws allowing frivolous lawsuits (suing the OB/GYN for 3 million because the baby is the wrong gender!) & ridiculous sums for 'malpractice'. the original idea for HMOs was a good one, doctors getting together to cut costs on office space, supplies, billing staff, etc. & the people buying in to get annual or biennial checkups in order to stay healthy & avoid the expense of problems left too long because they couldn't afford a doctor visit... then those HMOs got bought up by companies, with stockholders, who demand profits & dividends so prices keep spiralling upwards. healthcare can provide the doctors & staff a living wage without it being a cashcow for bureaucrats. one will need to cap medical malpractice claims and stop the frivlous lawsuits, and remove the drug companies from the payroll however, and under this administration that's certainly not going to happen. big businees is more important that a few whiny mortals... i belonged to the first HMO in NH. it cost me $150/year & i got a full medical workup, with complete labs to start, then office calls were 'free'. if i did become ill, the only out- of-pocket expenses were medications. one was expected to schedule one annual exam per year, two if over 55. for $150. it was a deal. when i lost 30 pounds in 2 weeks, i went in to see what was going on. they suspected hepatitus c, but it turned out to be "only" stress... anyway, they did a full work up, had me back in a week (i lost another 10 pound), put me on a high calorie diet & had me in for weekly checks for a month or so. none of it cost me out of pocket. *that's* what health care should be! lee > what i don't get is why *anyone* thinks the "top 10%" should > be paying for everyone else. what ever happened to self [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > diet & had me in for weekly checks for a month or so. none of > it cost me out of pocket. *that's* what health care should be! I cannot snip a byte of that post! Amen and bravo! I totally agree. I was an early HMO user in MA [early 1980's, iirc]. It was a marvelous idea and worked well, at least for me. Then things got out of hand, just as you describe. HMO's have been just like major medical insurance plans for years, now, except at least with the maj. medicals one can pick one's own docs without worrying about networks or referrals from primary care physicians. Sigh. Aula, wishing Washington would read alt.moms once in a while |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.