posted on October 29, 2002 12:34:54 PM new
I agree, Linda_K, that something needs to be done about medical costs in this country.
When my husband retired about two years ago, our cost to continue with the same insurance plan went up about $500 a month. To save money he dropped me from that plan and put me on his present employer's. That saves us about $2000 a year, but necessitated a change in physicians. When he retires a second time, we'll again be faced with higher costs. I think we're probably lucky in that we can still afford to buy insurance. So many people can't. When I was a kid, my employers all offered a reasonably priced health insurance plan. I think those days are looong gone.
posted on October 29, 2002 12:46:23 PM new
Hi saabsister - So what do you think can be done? Is the only way to deal with this issue to let the government control it? That thought alone makes me shake in my boots.
What do you [or other's] see as the pluses and minuses to socialized medicine? [Qualifying it as OTHER than all having free care.] I'd really be interested in reading. I can't imagine have a long time period [sometimes life threatening wait] go between diagnosis and treatment....like in Canada.
I guess it just surprises me that while I know those who 'lean' left want more of everything for the 'poor' are they really in favor of our government being in charge of their medical care, being the one to decide for them?
posted on October 29, 2002 01:11:38 PM new
I'll grab my boots and shake with you! I don't have any quick answers. I do think everyone who works should be covered at a reasonable cost. I guess that as much as I #*!@ about the cost of insurance, I can still afford it. Just imagine two people who have to work grungy jobs that we wouldn't do day in and day out. How do they afford insurance for their families? How can we look at them and understand their financial plight and say your children are unworthy of medical care because it will cost me more. I guess I'm willing to pay more, grouse about it on a message board, and have everyone covered for the basics at my expense. At the same time I want more options than the wait that Canadians experience.
posted on October 29, 2002 01:22:05 PM newHow can we look at them and understand their financial plight and say your children are unworthy of medical care because it will cost me more.
I wouldn't mind more of my taxes being spent on the medical care of the poor, just like they already are via medicaid. Say uping the income qualifications...increasing payments made to doctors etc. I just don't want socialized medicine [government run in any way shape or form] and for that reason alone I will always vote against it.
posted on October 29, 2002 02:05:04 PM new
There are two forces at play in the health care problem.
First is the overall economic problem. Wages have not kept up- some figures adjusted for inflation, state that real wages for workers haven't really went up in over 25 years. This is basically driven by international competition. Your working counterpart in China, Mexico, and Indonesia does not have health care benefits and works for lower wages. Employers have three choices:
1. Drastically lower wages and benefits- which they can't go low enough to undercut third world workers. 2. Move the jobs to third world countries- this is being done. 3. Take steps that make the US worker so productive that the third world worker can't compete.
1 and 2 are what is mostly happening. So people lose jobs that had health benefits, or keep the same job and lose or have to pay more for the benefits.
At the same time health care costs rise faster than inflation.
"Socialized" medicine will not come about because a few "elites" think it would be really neat. It will come about as more and more of the middle class become poor and/or lose their employer paid health care benefits.It will not be the case of the govt forcing the system upon us, it will be the electorate demanding health care from the government that brings about socialized medicine. It's not a conservative or liberal political movement.
posted on October 29, 2002 02:59:28 PM new
Thank you Reamond - You're probably right.
But at this point in time, I don't agree with your last statement. It's not a liberal or conservative political movement. I see it as a continuation of the more liberal thinkers 'take from the rich and share with the poor' way of dealing with most issues. I know most here don't agree...but that's how it appears to me. I appreciate you stating your opinion.
posted on October 29, 2002 09:30:44 PM new
In Michigan we have Blue Cross Blue Shield. My understanding of this company is as follows, anyonw please correct me if I'm wrong.
It was started after WW2, in about 1949 by the state as a non profit corporation owned by the state. It is still a non profit agency. It's goal was to enable many people to be able to afford to buy health insurance at better rates than commercial insurance could provide. Another goal is to make ensurance available to everyone, regardless of pre existing condition. With these two considerations, at one time BCBS was more affordable to many people. However it has been hit by the same problem as other insurance companys.
In todays medical marketplace, the doctor will test you for everything and anything that may be of the most remote concern. Many times he/she will find nothing resulting from this often unneeded testing. Then why do they do it? If they failed to catch something that a test was available for and complications resulted, then they have set themselves up for a sizable lawsuit. How do they prevent this? By doing the testing. If the doctor is sued, then their malpractice insurance rate soars. A doctor protects himself and his insurance rate by doing the tests and allowing your insurance to pick up the tab. When the XYX insurance company has to pay for this testing for large amount of the population, they raise their rates.
Who prompts these lawsuits, attorneys of course. Take your choice, slip and fall, car accidents, medical concerns and many more. There is one attoreny in the Detroit area that advertises on a daily basis that he wants you to call him for any supected birth injury to your child. Another asks you to call if you slip on someone's property. He asks you to call him even if its your fault. Many of these are burdensome lawsuits that are easier to settle out of court for $10,000 than to follow through with. The attorny takes about 1/3 for doing paperwork. The plantiff makes the rest after paying the cost of this "courtroom production" The losers are the ones who wish to buy insurance, this being either a private individual, or an emplpoyer trying to maintain better employees through insurance benefits.
One way of enabling more people to buy health insurance is to make the full amount, dollar for dollar a tax deductible expense. At today's tax rate in the US, I think you may deduct only anything that is over 7 percent of your imcome.
posted on October 29, 2002 11:03:48 PM new
> So how do you do it?? Do you just opt out of insurance altogether and cross your fingers (so to speak)? I mean, who could afford that kind of money each month? What about retirees on a limited budget... do they have a special plan or anything, or are they just grouped in with the poor? -KraftDinner-
KD, most of the poor that I know are the working poor. They can't afford medical insurance and they couldn't pay medical bills even if they went to the doctor. Instead, they just don't go and reply upon folk medicine and try as many home remedies as possible. Some of these remedies are not scientifically proven to work and end up injuring or killing many Americans each year. A few dried herbs to make a tea to drink is cheaper than going to a doctor, who they couldn't afford to pay, let alone any sort of treatment. And prescription medicine in Canada is as little as 25% as our costs, so figure your cost for medicine and multiply by four to imagine what it is like for us. I've known badly injured poor who, when someone called an ambulance for them to rush them to the hospital, they refuse to go because they can't pay the $480 to $850 ambulance fee themselves. And by the time that Uncle Fred gets there with the truck, the arm that was caught in the machine that cold have been saved is now what makes an amputee. Sad.
In Canada, do doctors go to diploma mills to learn their trade, KD? Not being able to adequately make a diagnosis means that they are under trained or educated. What does it cost to become a doctor in Canada? Did you know that in America, doctors at the best medical schools can owe a half-million dollars for their education? America is short on doctors. Many students are aware that doctors usually make less than $100,000 a year, must pay high medical malpractice insurance costs, pay back school loans of half a million dollars, AND pay for a practice, employees, run a business, AND try to raise a family! This is why so many students these days do not want to become doctors. It's too expensive a lifestyle for them. Republicans argue that it is because of high medical malpractice insurance that is solely to blame for it. Liberals deny that it is the only factor and point out the staggering high costs of medical education.
posted on October 30, 2002 05:56:40 AM new
I'll tell you Kraftdinner how people without insurance survive. My husband is several years older than I am so when he retired he was eligible for Medicare. I was not and to complicate the situation, I have the dreaded pre-existing condition of diabetes. No insurance company will insure me for any possible condition that may be caused by that condition.
So I educated myself about all the problems that I might encounter and how to avoid them. I modified my diet and exercise etc. so that I am probably healthier than I would be if I relied on a doctor and a bunch of pills. Instead of paying the astronomical insurance premiums that would cover only 'some' problems, I put that money in the bank.
I choose to die rather than pay the sob insurance companies one dime.
If I develop a serious condition, there is nothing that can be done anyway (even if I had insurance) so why worry about it. If the condition is not serious, I can handle it.
posted on October 30, 2002 06:33:39 AM new
Borillar - Most doctors make an average of twice the $$ you state.
It will be interesting to see what happens on your Oregon ballot measure in a week. Just read that this measure would provide pretty much 'socialized' medicine for the whole state.
But none of this seems to have registered on Democrats, Greens and the NAACP in Oregon, where they have put on the ballot in next week's election a Leninist plan for health care under which the government and only the government would provide, deliver, regulate and finance medical services to Oregonians.
The services provided would include comprehensive health care and everything related thereto-- from brain surgery and prescription drugs to marriage counseling and massages, from inpatient hospital care to long-term care for the elderly. And they would all be absolutely free to individuals and families--no deductibles, no copayments, no premiums.
The cost to taxpayers would be enormous. The ballot initiative would authorize $9 billion in new expenditures on top of the $16 billion Oregon currently spends on all government services, a 56% increase in the cost of government. The American Association of Health Plans estimates that about $15 billion in new taxes will be required to finance the program, an average of $5,000 per resident.
To pay for these "free" services, Oregon would increase its top income-tax rate--which applies to married couples earning as little as $12,500--to as much as 17% from an already high 9%, giving Oregon by far the highest income-tax rate in the country. Payroll taxes on employers would increase to 11.5%, doubling or tripling the current rate (depending on salary levels), an enormous financial burden on businesses that would guarantee a significant drop in employment.
posted on October 30, 2002 08:21:20 AM new
Even though they are increasing taxes for the health care, the electorate will not have to pay insurance premiums. Employers are probably supporting the measure - there are a lot of employers that would love to either get rid of health insurance costs, or those employers that can't offer health insurance are happy that competitors for employees will no longer offer health insurance.
Imagine this- businesses moving to Oregon BECAUSE they have state sponsored health care ? That is a huge and growing expense that the company would not have to pay.
The only thing I wouldn't like about the system is the complete chain of health care is governmental. Somewhere in the link there needs to be a private concern.
posted on October 30, 2002 08:25:26 AM new
"And prescription medicine in Canada is as little as 25% as our costs, so figure your cost for medicine and multiply by four to imagine what it is like for us."
An absolutely ridiculous statement as usual. I'm sure examples WILL NOT be soon forthcoming.
Kraftdinner,
Drugs are and are not significantly cheaper in Canada. All you have to do is do a search on a specific drug. Half of the hits will be for pharmacies in Canada or Mexico. A friend at work needed a drug that our 3-tiered plan would not cover. We did a search on the web and Walgreens here was charging $120. All of the Canadian outfits said to fax the doctor's prescription and a Canadian doctor would re-write it! They were all over $200 (US). Then we found a site that listed no address for $88. As a test, she put in the credit card info and thought she'd get a request for the prescription via email. No request came and she thought she was ripped-off. 10 days later the drugs arrived with no return address with a cancellation in Fiji and arrival in the US via Florida!
One reason health care is expensive is of course the insurance scams but also because people WITH coverage abuse it massively. If you have insurance, it doesn't mean care is "free", it still costs SOMEBODY, ultimately getting back to you. A typical example: My friend has coverage from his and his wife's plan. They have a 12 year old daughter. Every little sniffle is followed by a visit to the doctor, tests, and the inevitable drugs. Notwithstanding that pumping this kid full of antibiotics all the time is a medical disservice, it is an enormous expense to the insurer.
There should be system in place that gets people care that they need and PENALIZES those that don't need care. Perhaps for non-chronic conditions, you get a sliding scale of co-payments. So if you get your arm caught in the weedwacker you get taken care of while Mary's 20th trip to the doctor for the sniffles costs her $200.
Cure the insurance scams, lessen the drain on resources and you'll make a huge dent in the medical crisis.
posted on October 30, 2002 08:51:23 AM new
Morning Reamond - It's certainly going to be interesting to watch if it passes. Would be a great 'trial run' and lessons could be learned from it's example.
You speak to the issue of saving on insurance premiums but with a 56% increase in state spending...I doubt that will show a savings to those currently paying their premiums. I know for us before my husband retired our monthly insurance premium was less than $80.00 a month. And that total included dental and vision care also. Guess it's going to be an individual choice when voting, but I don't think one can dismiss a 56% increase in total government costs so quickly/easily. I know in CA when ever voters passed a ballot issue say for highway spending...it almost always ran twice what they initally thought it was going to. If this does...WATCH OUT.
And for bringing business TO Oregon...maybe...but just like the author of the op-ed piece said, "Sick and dying people will move to Oregon to take advantage of the free care; all the initiative requires is that they have "the present intention to remain within Oregon for a period of time" and be able to show their presence there is not "transitory." On the other hand, as government imposed price controls squeeze down fees, doctors will flee to more hospitable communities. Could go either way. Might end up being a 'magnet' that pulls non-contributing [to the states finances] people and then where will the costs go?
posted on October 30, 2002 09:11:57 AM new
Linda- was the $80 a month premium your share and the employer paid the rest or was it the total premium ? We only pay $140 a month for family coverage, but employers pay another $500 on top of that.
posted on October 30, 2002 09:15:19 AM new
Why does your insurances cost so much.....
A Pennsylvania woman is suing a pharmacy because she bought a contraceptive jelly from them and got pregnant anyway. She failed to read the directions and ate the jelly on toast.
A construction worker in Tulsa intentionally cut his hand off with a circular saw. When he was taken to the emergency room, he told doctors not to reattach the hand, saying that it was possessed. The man is now suing the doctors for not reattaching his hand, claiming that the doctors should have known he was psychotic.
A California woman sued a grocery store after she dropped a six-pack of beer on her feet. The woman was not injured, but she said that it hurt. She won the lawsuit.
An Arizona woman, Michele Nations, was walking through a park when she stumbled on a gopher hole, tripped, and sprained her ankle. She sued the city for failing to post a warning that such hazards might exist in the park. She won $450,000.
Kara Walton sued a nightclub after she fell out of a bathroom window and had her two front teeth knocked out. She won $12,000 plus dental expenses. She fell from the window, which she was using to sneak into the club to avoid the $3.50 cover charge.
A student attending a college in Idaho fell from his window while mooning a friend. The student then sued the college, claiming that it had not provided adequate information about the dangers of upper-story windows.
A man riding his bike home from work at night with no lights, only reflectors, was hit by a Jeep after the driver ran a stop sign. The bicyclist sued the bike manufacturer because he was not warned that reflectors might not be enough to prevent an accident. The man was awarded $6 million.
Who was it here who said that there were no frivolous lawsuits.......
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on October 30, 2002 09:28:57 AM new
Reamond - That was our share and I asked my husband if he could remember what amount the company paid and neither he nor I can recall off the top of our heads.
We now pay [as retirees] $369 a month for both of us [considered family coverage] and the company pays the same. Does that help?
posted on October 30, 2002 09:40:59 AM new
Reamond - I should have mentioned that the amount we now pay is for a different type of coverage than we had then. Upon retiring we felt we needed more comprehensive coverage to cover us as we age. Much of our medical expenses are now covered 100% vs. the 80/20 coverage we had then. We've also had HMO coverage during my husbands employment, which of course we were covered 100% under. During his employment we had a choice of 5 different plans. Each costing varying amounts according to the amount of coverage one wanted for their family.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:16:17 AM new
mlecher- liability insurance premiums are going up for doctors etc not because of law suits, but because interest rates and the stock market is down. Insurance companies aren't making as much money from investing the premiums so they just raise the rates to make up for the shortfall.
The exact same thing happened in the 1980s when interest rates fell and the stock market fell. Everyone claimed it was due to malpractice suits- doctors got out of ob-gyn and marched on the state capitals-- this all ahppened before and for the same reasons. But guess what ? It had nothing to do with malpractice suits or lawyers, and had everything to do with interest rates and the stock market.
The insurance companies use the lawsuit excuse every time to deflect the bad publicity for raising premiums towards someone else.
posted on October 30, 2002 02:50:24 PM new
You do not get it do you.
An Arizona woman, Michele Nations, was walking through a park when she stumbled on a gopher hole, tripped, and sprained her ankle. She sued the city for failing to post a warning that such hazards might exist in the park. She won $450,000.
Park insurance goes up..... Why....because now there is a NEW liability they have to cover, STUPIDITY AND GREED IN THE PARK
A California woman sued a grocery store after she dropped a six-pack of beer on her feet. The woman was not injured, but she said that it hurt. She won the lawsuit.
The Grocery stores pay more for insurance now. Why....because now there is a NEW liability they have to cover, STUPIDITY AND GREED IN GROCERY STORES
And on and on and on....
Yes the insurance companies are stupid, but not that stupid.
The church my father goes to just had its insurance cost raised. Why...because insurance now has to cover the possibility of child molestation by the church elders. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN IN THE CONGREGATION. But States are now MANDATING that coverage.
Before my mother died, she was on a jury to decide a civl lawsuit case...When they were sequestered, the rest of the jurors IMMEDIATELY went to discussing HOW MUCH THE INSURANCE COMPANY COULD AFFORD TO PAY and to hell with discussing the case, they wanted to get home. They figured, hell, they got alot of money...
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on October 30, 2002 06:46:43 PM new
> An absolutely ridiculous statement as usual. I'm sure examples WILL NOT be soon forthcoming. DeSquirrel
What an incredibly arrogant statement! I only had to do a google search on "canada drug cost" to find hundreds of links to studies, surveys, and advertisiements that all support my statement! For those of you who don't want to do a search onyour own, here's one Save up to 80% on prescription drugs from Canada
There you go!
Now, stop bothering me about "proofs" when you can damned well go find them yourself if you even bother to go look!
posted on October 30, 2002 07:01:47 PM new
>It will be interesting to see what happens on your Oregon ballot measure in a week. Just read that this measure would provide pretty much 'socialized' medicine for the whole state. -Linda-
Actually, Linda, the statewide voter's pamphlet hasn't been mailed out just yet and television advertisements are all attack ads from Republicans. I missed a few TownHall shows here, but if those reports are true, I can give everyone a bit of a different slant on this ballot.
This ballot was proposed to not pass.
I say that because Oregon already has a very workable and cost effective social medicine system. For those without incomes, it is free. For those on unemployment benefits, it is free. For students, it is free. For those with low income or below a certain income level, it is free. Then there is a sliding scale fee that makes it very affordable for medical coverage.
The drawback to the system is that it does not cover Critical Care. If you need a liver transplant, it won't cover it. If you have a broken leg, that will get covered. It was decided years ago to forego the critical care coverage in favor of extending general coverage to a much wider slice of society; such as, students.
The Republicans and Conservatives have been screaming for YEARS against it! Businesses love it and medical insurance companies love it because general care costs so much and is the largest part of many medical premiums. Republicans and Conservatives have been trying everything dirty trick that they can do, ever absolute bald-faced lie that they can make, and every effort at betraying and backstabbing voters in this state over the medical insurance system here.
This ballot is meant to make everyone "Just Say NO!" to socialized medicine. Next will come the removal of our low-cost medical care insurance coverage.
I tell you. The Republicans and Conservatives are complete assh*les in this state. They are trying to abolish the State Worker's Retirement System. Yep. All of those multi-multi-millionaires running in office now want the average worker to retire without benefits. That's how they promise to "cut spending" in State government!
posted on October 30, 2002 07:08:42 PM new
Ohh, I tried finding them myself on your link. I looked up about 25 drugs. Some were cheaper in the US (mostly generics), some cheaper in Canada (mostly name brands), many the same. The majority of "cheapers" were around 10-20%. So I'll continue to be arrogant until I discover that oasis you found where they are 80% less.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:16:10 PM new
Then why don't you go keep on reading until you get an education? That way you can stop bothering ME to go do your work for you!
posted on October 31, 2002 08:22:00 AM new
Sorry Borillar. The way it works is that a person can make an idiotic statement. It's a free country. But to maintain it as a fact requires the ORIGINATOR to back it up. This of course, anyone here can attest, is something you've never done.
While I'm sure your pets think of you as a god, you allow a wide range of pre-conceived and created personal predjudices to negate attempts at rational thought.
posted on October 31, 2002 09:40:57 AM new
DeSquirrel, why don't you do as Mlecher so concisely pointed out? If you have any problems with what I say here, why don't you do what adults do and go get the evidence to refute what I say, rather than your continued childish attempts to go make me prove anything that you aren't educated enough about? Go find the evidence that prescription drugs CANNOT be purchased in Canada for as little as 25% of what we have to pay for them and then bring that here to this forum to disprove my statement! That's how you do it in Debates, that's how it's done at any actual speaking engagement. The burden of proof is on the doubter. Otherwise, no one will ever be able to say anything without having unknowledgeable jerks continuously badgering speakers for evidence when they can damned well go get it themselves. It's a matter of sheer laziness on your part, DeSquirrel, and I'm not going to play your game. Grow up!
posted on October 31, 2002 09:46:13 AM new
>DeSquirrel arrogant? I don't think so. Knowledgeable, yes.
Oh, please, Linda. When DeSquirrel makes his idiotic statements in the RT, how many times has he been refuted? More than half the time that he posts. Then he disappears for a while, probably from shame, only to resurface and make some other idiotic statement. About 25% of the time he does talk about something that he actually knows about, while the rest is pure bluff that someone does or doesn't take the time to refute. If you want to go learn from him, then you can go become just as ignorant as he is. Be my guest!
posted on October 31, 2002 11:12:22 AM new
Borillar - I can only think of one person who posts in the RT that you haven't insulted at one time or another, ANY TIME they hold an opinion that is different from yours. You have absolutely no idea that because others think/feel/etc differently than the opinions you hold, it doesn't make them [put your insult here]. They just have formed a different opinion.
You appear to me to have absolutely no social skills. I have rarely seen a time when you can state your thoughts without insults. That's debating as a 'grown up'.
Accepting the idea that others are entitled to their opinions, to hold different views, seem an impossible task to you.
