posted on January 5, 2003 05:26:23 PM new
eBay announced its health insurance program without any press- it seems the insurance is nothing different than you can buy individually from a broker anywhere.
Why would anyone think that eBay could offer better or even similar health insurance to sellers than employers such as GE or GM or Ford or IBM at prices seller's could afford ?
posted on January 5, 2003 05:44:44 PM new
Are we all having fun with runaway Health Care costs yet? Tired of the Republican Way? You know, "What the Market will bear" sort of thing? Isn't it FUN having the medical and drug companies all go profit bingeing at our cost? Wasn't Deregulation such a swell idea? Didn't it just do Wonders for our economy to let them know that the government was 100 percent behind their crusade to find that ultimate mean -- the absolute highest price anybody can afford for health care?
If you truly want to bring the costs of medical care and medicine down to a reasonable level, then I think that medical insurance sold be outlawed and not made available to anybody. If everyone had to pay in cash, in full, doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies would go out of business overnight.
But we can't do that, can we? We have to have some health insurance. But the only way to make health insurance effective is to create non-profit health insurance companies with caps on salaries and perks for upper management. Sound like some ideas floated around Congress before? It should, if you've been paying any attention.
But even that wouldn't fix things for long. The problem is akin to the question of "What would happen if we gave everyone a thousand dollars a month?" The answer is, your food, clothing and rent would go up to take that thousand dollars away from you and everyone would be no better off than before.
In the case of the most effective national non-profit medical insurance, medical costs and drug costs would rise to consume whatever savings that there would be.
Both the short-run and the long-term answers to health insurance does not belong with the insurance companies, but rather with total regulation of the Health Care industry itself, IMO. And politicans who mention Insurance companies have no idea what they are talking about.
posted on January 5, 2003 06:27:33 PM new
may be the focus should be on the person who needs to be insured,cared for and medicated.
like nancy reagon said,dont get sick.
eat sensibly,rest well and dont use drug or drink excessively.
we are very lucky to have so much to eat,so much land to build a house,central air and heat and wheels to go places .and gasoline is only 1.50 a gallon.
posted on January 5, 2003 06:34:46 PM new
"What would happen if we gave everyone a thousand dollars a month?" The answer is, your food, clothing and rent would go up to take that thousand dollars away from you and everyone would be no better off than before."
Yes - and it is going to get worse.
Because they don't need us and we still need them.
It is getting cheaper and cheaper to make stuff
and harder and harder to make the money to buy it. Because the making takes huge capital investment and -LISTEN UP - Owning stocks no longer gives you a share in the wealth of the company.
You can own all you want and the wealth goes to the executives operating the company and the politicians that protect them.
Show me a stock you can buy and not be given as pay and hold that the dividend pays better than a high yield CD. Very few.
The only way you can make money on stock is speculation with high risk.
The old way of buying and holding for years has no assurance anymore.
The vast number of people now are a drain on the system rather than a asset.
The corperations skim off the talant and the rest are "do you want fries with that" material.
Why should they see any benefit in spending much on people taht are replaceable cogs?
posted on January 5, 2003 09:40:49 PM new
To me the GE employees are silly to strike. They're going to lose more in income than they would pay for the increase. And if it goes longer than expected might even lose their insurance benefits. What? To save $3.85 a month. I sure understand their reasons, but in these times it sure seems silly to me.
I did read something that I'd like to hear the different opinions on...regarding a proposal from Senator John Breaux of LA. I found his ideas worth considering. The article is in the New York Times today and I'll copy and paste a little of it.
If you're old, you're in the Medicare box. If you're a veteran, you're in the V.A. box. If you're working, you're in the employer-sponsored box. Each of these boxes has a huge bureaucracy and spends a lot of money.
"We need to get people out of these boxes which don't make a lot of sense. What we ought to say is that if you're an American citizen, you have to buy health insurance, just like drivers have to have liability insurance. But this insurance should come from the private sector and not be a single-payer plan like the earlier Clinton proposal and what some Democrats are talking about now. I would not support a government-run program. We just can't micromanage health care that way."
But Senator Breaux is quick to say that while the program he wants would not be run by the government, it would be regulated. Premiums would be subsidized by the government, depending on an individual's income. Companies, of course, could still pay the premiums for their workers.
Insurance companies might offer several levels of government-approved coverage with various deductibles and co-payments, much like the so-called Medigap policies available to Medicare recipients. Younger, healthier people might elect a basic plan. "But everybody would have to buy at least the basic plan," Senator Breaux said.
"Competition from the various insurance companies would help control costs; the government would help pay for the program and make sure that it works, that those offering insurance aren't scamming the system and that nobody is prevented from buying insurance or forced to pay higher rates because of things like pre-existing conditions."
He said such a plan would lower rates because it would force everyone, healthy and unhealthy, into big insurance pools and spread the risks. "Now, people 18 to 25 are the most likely not to have health insurance," he said. "They're the healthiest, and we need them in the insurance pool to help lower costs."
So....what do you think?
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 5, 2003 09:47 PM ]
posted on January 5, 2003 10:11:19 PM new
I can see potential with such a plan for problems:
The poor. So everyone would be required to purchase at least basic insurance...but there are millions who couldn't afford to do so. Which means that the government would end up having to cover the tab for their premiums...and the rest of us would be out of pocket paying for it.
And with the government picking up the tab for premiums, there is scope for even more illegal immigrants jumping on the bandwagon and costing us even more.
Widening of gap between the "haves" and "have nots." So there'd be different levels of insurance. That would mean that middle class & wealthy people would get the creme de la creme of medical service...while poorer citizens would have to settle for the "basic level." Medicines & treatments would be divvyed out according to wealth.
Lawsuit costs. I would predict that sooner or later (probably sooner), people with only the "basic level" will sue because they aren't getting the treatment that other with higher inurance levels are getting. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 5, 2003 10:22:25 PM new
Many good points, bunni -
That would mean that middle class & wealthy people would get the creme de la creme of medical service...while poorer citizens would have to settle for the "basic level." On this point, kind of like it already is. But at least all of the 40% would then be insured under this plan.
Are you for socialized medicine? If you don't mind my asking?
posted on January 5, 2003 10:30:57 PM new
I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, it would certainly ensure that everyone had medical coverage.
On the other hand, such a system is very expensive. We complain about our taxes now--but just look at countries that have socialized medicine and you'll see that we pay little compared to them! Many would not be willing to have such huge tax increases, regardless of the general benefits.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 5, 2003 10:41:25 PM new
The reason I found the Senator's suggestions so interesting is I saw it as a way to insure all without going to socialized medicine, which I am totally against. I just don't feel comfortable putting health care directly in the hands of our government agencies.
We have several Canadian friends who while living in Canada experienced their health care under their system. Then upon being transfered to The States said they liked our system much better. But, of course, they weren't poor nor unable to pay for their benefits. They seemed to mostly appreciate being able to call up the doctor and see him/her within a reasonable time frame. And if a surgery was recommend, it seemed to surprise them it could be scheduled so quickly.
I am concerned about the poor. At least, in Canada, although there may be some inconvenience, the poor are not denied health care because they have no money.
The United States is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care. Forty-seven million Americans do not have health coverage And as cost of health care continues to rise and the economy continues to go down hill, this number will increase.
posted on January 6, 2003 11:13:44 AM new
Insurance isn't the complete answer.
Either you provide COMPLETE insurance for EVERYONE and then let cost of the premiums go off into orbit and you pay up for it in taxes; or, you don't insure everyone, but instead pass a *lot* of legislation that reduces the prices of medical and medicines down to affordable levels.
What you are discussing is the other way around and it won't work for many reasons. Either you regulate the hell out of the Health industry or you regulate the hell out of the Insurance industry.
1) The cost of medicine and medical treatment must be cost controlled, because no existing health coverage will be good much longer. They are pushing the insurance companies and the insured to the breaking point -- just for profit!
2) Once you have Health Care under control, then you can talk about offering lower cost insurance or basic coverage for everyone! To put this cart before the horse is only going to insure the fact that nearly all of our taxes will go to pay for premiums if you don't completely control costs first.
posted on January 6, 2003 11:46:23 AM new
I didn't say it was the complete answer. I was simply explaining the situation in the United States today.
Don't try to twist my words around.
If you believe that the US congress will reduce the income of the pharmaceutical industry and medical industry, you must be in some kind of fantasy land.
posted on January 6, 2003 12:00:19 PM new
The basic problem is that nobody wants to make the decision that care should be withdrawn.
Right now there is somebody in my family in the hospital and they have no health insurance at all. The man has always avoided doctors and on two occasions in the past has refused surgery when it was offered and suffered through the symptoms for years rather than have the defect fixed.
He is 82 years old if I remember correctly, and had a massive stroke. He probably had high blood pressure but never had it checked or treated.
He is unable to speak or write and his body temperature and other body functions are just flying up and down all over the place from the brain damage of the stroke. They wanted to cut a hole in his skull and relieve the pressure and his wife would not permit it because she said he would never have accepted any surgery all of his life and she couldn't do that to him.
When he woke up from emergency he tore all the tubes and IV out of him with the arm that is not paralysed.
They won't even allow family to go in and see him because when he sees them he goes absolutelly ballistic and writhes all over the bed and rips at everything.
He has been in intensive care in critical condition for a week with no insurance. For keeping him alive against a death that is almost certain since he won't help in his treatment they have probably spent a half million dollars.
Even if the wife seels her house and all their investments instead of declaring bankruptsy she will never satisfy the debt.
What is the point of this?
Why did they even call an ambulance if they won't accept treatment once they get there?
What is the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent treating someone who will live long enough to have some benefit from it and eeeenjoy life for awhile?
Nobody has any thought but it is a question of how many days he can go on like this before he dies. If by some wild chance he stabilizes he will be a bedridden semi-veggie for a few years 'til he dies.
posted on January 6, 2003 12:02:23 PM new"If you believe that the US congress will reduce the income of the pharmaceutical industry and medical industry, you must be in some kind of fantasy land."
I believe that as drug companies and the other factors that are increasing costs way beyond the means of even the upper-middle class, there is going to be a revolt. Whether Congress steps in order to keep people from going vigilante and hanging executives from drug companies from the nearest stout tree limb remains to be seen. I think that we are just beginning to see where full-scale, uncontrolled, unregulated corporate industrial capitalism will take us.
And I know where that will be: we'll all be third world people looking a pair of blue jeans, made in Mexico or El Salvador, and it costs a month's pay to afford one. Pure capitalism isn't bad, so long as there is plenty of competition and an even playing field.
But Congress visa-vie the Republican philosophy is to let corporations eliminate all competition, as Monopolies are Good (War is Peace, Danger is Safety, etc), and to let the natural tendencies of corporatism and business to make the playing field uneven in favor of a few go without government refereeing.
This can not go on forever. While there is a bright and cheery economic forecast (much like the old Soviet Union's Fiver-Year Plans) for this coming year, it too will fail to pan out. Many people who support the GOP and the President will turn to resentment. THEN the fun will begin! Will Congress finally step in and do something substantial to fix Health Care? Or, will they chance being burned down inside the hallowed halls that they hide behind form the people? We'll see!
posted on January 6, 2003 12:06:37 PM new
That's really sad, gravid. I suspect that he is angry just for those reasons that he didn't want he and his wife's money to go for doctors and hospital bills. That he discovered that he was sent to the hospital with all of its enormous costs, he knew that his wishes had not been concidered. I'm sure he much would have prefered to have died naturally and without critical medical care.
If a Dr. Kevorkian could visit more nursing homes there would be a lot less misery and more money saved.
The quaility of life in a nursing home is abysmal. Most of the wretched inmates don't have a functioning brain. Isn't this the definition of death?
posted on January 6, 2003 01:03:57 PM new
Suicide is illegal. That's always been a mystery to me. If there is, but one and only one true fundamental Right that anyone has, that is to choose the time and manner of their own death, if possible. The Church never had a Right to tell people when and How people shoud die; the medical establishment never had a Right to keep people from dying wo want to; and the government has no Right getting involved in someone wanting to end their own life. That's just my two cents.
posted on January 7, 2003 11:39:39 AM new
after watching my MIL progress through the stages of Alzheimer's I would never allow that to happen to me.
I would either go without making a mess - or pick a suitable honor guard to take to hell with me. It would be so hard to pick -
Tobbacco company execs?
Pension fund robbers?
TV preachers?
People who throw their chip papers out the window of their motor car when they're empty?
posted on January 7, 2003 02:37:25 PM new
gravid - Sorry to hear about your family member. I can understand you questioning "Why did they even call an ambulance if they won't accept treatment once they get there?" My uncle who's 87 is this way too. Hates doctors and hospitals. When he's had to be there, he makes the medical staff's life miserable.
I think it's a matter of people not discussing these issues before an incident happens. For my husband and I, we have discussed many 'could happen' scenarios and know what we're going to do in case of 'this or that'. Plus having a notarized form at our doctors office, stating our wishes.
It's very hard for some to discuss these issues and then they just 'react' rather than think ahead of time.
