Fine for refusing health care?!?!?! - The Health care thread....

[audtatious]

That's another flaw in the system.

Most countries with UH have free higher education

*edit* France has 24x7 doctors that make house calls

Ah. So, not only would you want the Gov to pay for your health care you want them to pay for your education too? How about everyone have Gov housing and drive Gov-supplied cars and work at the job they tell you to work at where you can't be fired?

What would you give for the security of having someone else make decisions and choices for you?

[audtatious]

Also, I am curious, what do you guys consider alot of money? Or rather a VERY comfortable amount.

At a lowly $100k you are bringing in ~$7k a month after taxes. Where can you not live on that and afford anything you want?

*edit* Maybe my wants arn't as grand as some...

100k where I live is a decent salary. 100k in NY or San Fran is crap if you want to get anywhere or "afford anything you want".

[PoorManQ45]

Ah. So, not only would you want the Gov to pay for your health care you want them to pay for your education too? How about everyone have Gov housing and drive Gov-supplied cars and work at the job they tell you to work at where you can't be fired?

The problem is that we are inside our system and have been our whole lives. So that's all we know. Politicians spout about the evils of socialism. Seems we like have a Police department, Fire department, Libraries, etc... All socialistic entities. If you want to make the government can't do it right arguement lets take it all the way. Privatize the Police, Fire, and any other government societies. I'm normally not an extremist when it comes to this stuff, but sometimes a drastic view point is needed.

I have family from Canada, France, and England. None of them have a $50k(low by our standards) debt getting out of college. They all love the healthcare system. If they were sick, they went to their local doctor and the wait was not anymore then here.

[heliochrome85]

My GP is great but is working 80 hours a week trying to make ends meet and the last time I spoke with her she had to see a patient at least every 10 minutes just to pay the bills, which is ridiculous. You constantly see commercials on TV for law firms wanting to sue for medical issues, etc etc etc.

There is lots that can be fixed within the current system to make things better.

You see, all the money in medicine is in procedures. Honestly. GPs, Internists, pediatricians, they all work the hardest because they have to make up for not having ANY procedures. For example. Colonoscopy, takes 15 min to do, and can be billed for 500+. You do 10-12 of them in a usual day. (Dad is a GI, hence the numbers.) ERCP takes 25 min to do, bill for 1000. Can you point to anything a GP or Internist or Pediatrician does that can be billed for anything more than a few hundred? Would you believe that while Neurology is one of the most difficult specialties, they make below average money? Its because they dont have any procedures...

You want to decrease health care costs? You open up more spots in medical schools. The AAMC has demanded that US medical schoolsl expand their classes by 15-20% over the next 5 years to compensate for the increased demand on the system. When you have that, you theorhetically have increased competition in the Health care industry, since providers are now in bigger numbers. WHere is the flaw? The flaw is that Residency salaries are paid for by Medicare. Currently Medicare has not increased the amount of PAID residency spots in several years. Since hospitals arent willing to pay for residents' salaries, yousee that the number of doctors is fairly irrelevant, since they are worthless if they cant do residency due to a lack of spots.

Again, congress fails.

[heliochrome85]

Nobody flies to the UK to get a medical procedure done!

you sir are quite wrong.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsm...87.jp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=164777

[ishkabibble]

Ish, as usual, is all for absolving others of their responsibilities and letting the almighty government raise us from birth to death.

More like I'm pragmatic. Everyone needs health care; centralized basic health care makes sense.

Show me where I am consistently "for absolving others of their responsibilities and letting the almighty government raise us from birth to death."

I know you won't; your strategy when you get called out when you are wrong is to just not respond.

[ishkabibble]

Sorry, you are misinformed. I know multiple people (quite well in fact) who are from countries with universal health care. While none will say for sure whether they prefer the US system or not, they all say that the lines are ridiculous.

All of the Canadians I know prefer their system to ours. So I guess the anecdotal information cancels each other out?

[PoorManQ45]

All of the Canadians I know prefer their system to ours. So I guess the anecdotal information cancels each other out?

It's funny, when canadians visit the USA they make sure to buy a vacation insurance policy because they know they can't afford the astronomical medical fees here.

[audtatious]

You see, all the money in medicine is in procedures. Honestly. GPs, Internists, pediatricians, they all work the hardest because they have to make up for not having ANY procedures. For example. Colonoscopy, takes 15 min to do, and can be billed for 500+. You do 10-12 of them in a usual day. (Dad is a GI, hence the numbers.) ERCP takes 25 min to do, bill for 1000. Can you point to anything a GP or Internist or Pediatrician does that can be billed for anything more than a few hundred? Would you believe that while Neurology is one of the most difficult specialties, they make below average money? Its because they dont have any procedures...

Makes perfect sense.

You want to decrease health care costs? You open up more spots in medical schools. The AAMC has demanded that US medical schoolsl expand their classes by 15-20% over the next 5 years to compensate for the increased demand on the system. When you have that, you theorhetically have increased competition in the Health care industry, since providers are now in bigger numbers. WHere is the flaw? The flaw is that Residency salaries are paid for by Medicare. Currently Medicare has not increased the amount of PAID residency spots in several years. Since hospitals arent willing to pay for residents' salaries, yousee that the number of doctors is fairly irrelevant, since they are worthless if they cant do residency due to a lack of spots.

Again, congress fails.

Under UH, some of the money to pay for it is actually pulled from Medicare so it seems the pool may be even less in the future under this bill. With the requirement to have checkups for everyone under this new plan there will be a large requirement for more GP's ( or long lines and waiting lists via existing GP's as seen via Romeycare ) which means either the Gov is going to have to pay them more to "make it worth their while" or will have to have some form of lottery or mandate to force more people into those lower paying fields. Seems hardly fair to the futured doctors, IMO.

[heliochrome85]

as it stands currently, there are alot more qualified applicants than there are spots for medical schools. If one was to say, subsidize the cost of going into the field if they were to agree to work in rural communities for 5 years, you would see prevantative care in areas that are normally overlooked. My udnerstanding is that generally, the plan is of the "stitch in time saves nine" variety. If you increase public health coverage, you reduce the number of terminally ill patients on Medicaid/Medicare. Because you make going to see the doctor an option to people who dont normally have it, you increase the liklihood of early detection. You would be amazed at how well this works. Cancer screens in general work on the level of 75% reductions in terms of lethality because of this. Yes, there might be lines initially in areas of few doctors, but if you were to in coordination of UH, increase the number of spots available to doctors to practice, while lowering the costs associated with actually becoming a physician, i think we would see a system that actually works. Just like before, and in other countries, you would have the option of seeing someone of your own chooseing, provided that you can afford it. that would make the normal, 6-7 figure salary still a relatively attainable thing for entering physicians.

For the person who just wants to get checked out by the doctor, they dont generally care who the doctor is, because there is a very high trust level associated with the profession. As a result you would see that the lines arent gonna be nearly as bad as people say, that is if they are seen at all.

[heliochrome85]

on a side note,

for me, tuition is 22.5k a semester, let alone books and living expenses...its costing me around 60k a year to become a doctor. 240k total

then once im out, in residency, i will be paid 40-50k until im done. that could be anywhere from 3-7 years depending on what it is.

schools like Michigan State, Colorado, their Medical School tuitions for out of state border on the 61k mark, that is plus room/board/books/food

kids like me, who came from a state where there was only one medical school, dont have much choice..

the system is broken. and the AAMC/AMA are both historically very slow to change. I don't have much hope unless we try something completely new. Thats why i look to UH as being something so drastically new, it might just do the trick. BO isnt stupid. Nor are his advisors. I think its gonna be a wait and see sort of thing. The future isnt nearly as scary as some of the main stream media have made it sound.

[seang]

This thread is a giant headache. I am unemployed right now. I eat healthy and stay in my healthy weight range. Its up to the individual how healthy they stay, and what they put themselves through in order to stay healthy, or not stay healthy for that matter. If you are healthy, you should make individual wholesome steps to stay that way so you don't have to rely on the system. If you are sick, you should use do what you need to get healthy, and then try to rely less on the system as time goes by. There is no easy "silver bullet" solution, more of an individual approach. The system is just that, the system. It only cares about itself. It will help people, but only if it benefits the system. Its never about the individual, thats why the individual has to advocate himself, and its a crime against himself to do any different. I understand that unfortunately some things are unavoidable, and this is where ones spirituality comes in.
Modified by seang at 10:16 PM 7/5/2009

[PoorManQ45]

I agree with the healthy nature of a person.

What I am referring to is emergencies. What happens if you break your arm without insurance?

[seang]

I will quote an old freind of mine, he used to say "you get paid when I get paid". f***in' hilarious. And if that dosen't pan out and they try to collect evey last possesion you have for payment, then its time for war, for real.

[seang]

Some people are addicted to the system, they fiend for it.
Modified by seang at 9:56 AM 7/6/2009

[audtatious]

I agree with the healthy nature of a person.

What I am referring to is emergencies. What happens if you break your arm without insurance?

You go to the ER and they set the bone and you get billed.

[szh]

At a lowly $100k you are bringing in ~$7k a month after taxes. Where can you not live on that and afford anything you want?

San Francisco Bay Area for one.

Z

[szh]

I agree with the healthy nature of a person.

What I am referring to is emergencies. What happens if you break your arm without insurance?

I don't know about other states, but here in California as I recall, the hospital is required by law to treat you for that emergency, set your arm, give you the pain-killer, etc.

Whether you can pay for that is dealt with later, after the emergency is over. Then, it is a financial issue if you cannot pay the bill. That leads to credit problems, etc.

Z

[seang]

I don't know about other states, but here in California as I recall, the hospital is required by law to treat you for that emergency, set your arm, give you the pain-killer, etc.

Whether you can pay for that is dealt with later, after the emergency is over. Then, it is a financial issue if you cannot pay the bill. That leads to credit problems, etc.

Z

Perfect point here, I believe its a federal law requiring the treatment of emergencies like these. As far as the credit goes, f*** It. Don't give all your money to the creditors. In every possible way, stay the f*** away from credit. If you don't already have the money coming in, don't spend it, unless its on something that will eventually net you more.

[legit240sx]

im supized no one has shot OB yet i mean come on kkk get it in gear or something...lol jkjk but i think our president is a joke, dude is going to ruin the country and usa will be like every one else...

i mean come on he wasn't even born in the states he will not show his birth certificate cuz they don't have one in kenya.....

black people i love you and im not hating on race.

[PoorManQ45]

I don't know about other states, but here in California as I recall, the hospital is required by law to treat you for that emergency, set your arm, give you the pain-killer, etc.

Z

I meant the bill portion.

I've got a buddy at work that had a rally bad accident. Ended up with multiple broken ribs, two punctured lungs, ruptured spleen, apendix burst, and a few other things. No insurance.

Ended up with a $300k bill. He ended up filing for bankruptcy. This was a few years back when bankruptcy completely eliminated the outstanding debt.

Seriously though, that really sucks. There are people in different situations that just cant afford healthcare. What do you suggest they do?

[heliochrome85]

im supized no one has shot OB yet i mean come on kkk get it in gear or something...lol jkjk but i think our president is a joke, dude is going to ruin the country and usa will be like every one else...

i mean come on he wasn't even born in the states he will not show his birth certificate cuz they don't have one in kenya.....

black people i love you and im not hating on race.

quiet. men are talking.

[audtatious]

I meant the bill portion.

I've got a buddy at work that had a rally bad accident. Ended up with multiple broken ribs, two punctured lungs, ruptured spleen, apendix burst, and a few other things. No insurance.

Ended up with a $300k bill. He ended up filing for bankruptcy. This was a few years back when bankruptcy completely eliminated the outstanding debt.

Seriously though, that really sucks. There are people in different situations that just cant afford healthcare. What do you suggest they do?

So, it's not actual denial of service that you have issue with it's the bill that comes with the services rendered. Your friend was not paying into a group plan to ensure coverage in case something happens and when it did you don't feel he should pay anything for what he received in services. Instead, he filed bankruptcy which means we paid his bill for him anyway in the form of higher premiums or more out of pocket for our own hospital/doctor visits. Your viewpoint is that should everyone get free health care via the Gov then he would not have had a bill in the first place.........Except for the fact that somebody, somewhere, has to pay the bill in some means.

So. let's say that he gets covered by UH via the sliding scale method that Obama has stated and your friend ends up being required to pay some of the bill out of pocket. If that percentage was 30% ($90k) would that have been paid by your friend or would he have said "fuk that" and filed for bankruptcy anyway?

[legit240sx]

haha you got it

[heliochrome85]

i think that people are generally good. If they have the means to cover a bill, they wont just cheat their way out of it. 90k is much more manageable than 300k.

plus, i think that a civilized society as ours should provide a basic level of healthcare. At the very least, its an investment, where it would allow for screens for expensive diseases at early stages, that way, the tax payers dont get screwed with million dollar transplants or bone grafts on medicare and medicaid.

[PoorManQ45]

The system is fundamentally flawed.

We pay private companies for insurance, yet they do not completely cover the bill, only a percentage of it.

This is the system we know, so everyone assumes it is the only one that will work.

How can Canada, France, most european nations, and hell, even cuba, afford UH? Their systems seem to work very well.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The system is fundamentally flawed.

We pay private companies for insurance, yet they do not completely cover the bill, only a percentage of it.

Uuuhh, that's what you pay them for. If they claimed they were going to pay 100%, then didn't, then we'd have a problem. Do you complain about your deductible for car insurance?

How can Canada, France, most european nations, and hell, even cuba, afford UH? Their systems seem to work very well.

No they don't. Long lines, substandard treatment.

[heliochrome85]

No they don't. Long lines, substandard treatment.

Where are you gettng this information? From as much as I can gather, that just simply isnt true.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/st...b3474

If you've listened to Rudy Giuliani or any of the other Republican presidential candidates lately, then you've probably heard them claim that creating universal health care would necessarily lead to inferior treatments, particularly for deadly diseases like cancer. But that just isn't so. While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable. For some variants--such as cervical cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and two common forms of leukemia--the U.S. survival rate, although good, lags behind at least some other countries. You may also have heard critics complain that universal health care inevitably leads to long lines for treatments, as it sometimes has in Britain and Canada. Again, the facts just don't back that up. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, France and Germany don't have chronic waiting lines. Access to care in those countries turns out to be as easy as, if not easier than, in the United States, where even people with good private insurance must sometimes wait to see a specialist or go through managed care gatekeepers to get tests and treatments recommended by their physicians. As National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru recently acknowledged, in a refreshing burst of candor, "[T]he best national health-insurance programs do not bear out the horror stories that conservatives like to tell about them."

[audtatious]

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ccess

Numbers are skewed along a partisan percentage dependent on the question.

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html"In June, state officials announced they are cutting $100 million from Commonwealth Care, which subsidizes premiums for needy residents. The poorest residents, along with the newest -- legal immigrants -- will take the hit."

Is the plan that Obama wants implemented greatly different than what was implemented in MA?

[PoorManQ45]

Sorry, I'm not talking about the plan that is trying to be implemented.

I'm talking about a properly implemented plan from the ground up.

As we have seen over and over, our government can't get it right.