Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by garysher

My last post was pointing out that it's not only the 47M UN-insured who are the problem, but an even bigger number of UNDER-insured.

I understand that. That's why I like my "fair" plan. Everyone that goes to the doctor will have their bills paid. That will free up tons more money for charity. You think healthcare is a "right". But I don't. I've been reading on the British model. I'll pass on that thank you. Sounds like it ain't working all that great either. My "fair" plan pays for basic needs including pregnancy, but if you want coverage for a car crash or anything like that, it's no "right", you have to pay for it. Because if "you" don't, it's not on the back of the taxpayer to do it for you. That's BS.
The taxpayer should not be required to pay for smoking, drug addiction, or anything like that.

It's academic if America can provide some of the highest quality health care in the world if it's unavailable to most Americans.

I don't think the correct word is "most". Now who is being alarmist?

I'm all for some means-tested system where those who can afford to contribute more do so. But I think you and sarge may over estimate the financial impact of people who manipulate the system. I agree we have to make every effort to prevent them taking advantage, but not at the expense of denying service to people who need it.

But if we are gonna control costs, we have to do it wherever we can. And this would be one of those areas. I don't believe in denying coverage. But I also don't think coverage should be free for all. It's not "free". Somebody has to pay.

Also, the principle of charging higher premiums to people who make the most claims may be fair with car or house insurance, but is it really fair with health insurance?

That's not what I said. I said charge extra for those that do risky things. Not for those that are legitimately sick from an uncontrollable illness. Some people pose a larger risk than others on the system. A meth addict should not be able to go unemployed and come on and get the same quality care as someone who pays a boatload of taxes to keep the system going. That's BS.
A $25 co-pay will help control frivolous visits.

Nobody asks to have an asthmatic or diabetic child. Nobody leaves home planning to have an accident and be in hospital for months, or to contract cancer like the 15 year old girls in that story above.

No one plans for a hurricane, no one plans for the accident, but we all have hazard insurance to protect ourselves and our assets. That is what insurance is. It protects assets. And in the case of health insurance, it also protects your health. But it's not a "right" to take money from one person in the name of another person's health.

At some point compassion has to take precedence over perfecting a business model.

Originally Posted by fxashun

An American View of the British system

OpinionJournal - Extra

I'll pass thank you.

Originally Posted by garysher

4) The bill was only $25k (because they weren't British citizens) for one MONTH'S worth of care - how much would that have cost in the US??

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

Originally Posted by fxashun

An American View of the British system

OpinionJournal - Extra

I'll pass thank you.

Originally Posted by garysher

Think twice before passing.

Even from that one example you quoted:

1) The writers wife didn't die, like the 15 year old American girl in the story I quoted
2) He was hugely complimentary of the treatment his wife received.
3) Inner city hospitals like Queens Sq tend to be older and less salubrious
4) The bill was only $25k (because they weren't British citizens) for one MONTH'S worth of care - how much would that have cost in the US?? They weren't forced into bankruptcy and saved a fortune over exhorbitant US pricing!

Originally Posted by akuma

25000 USD for a month in patient with tests? That is not a bad cost when comparing to a month stay in a US hospital. So what if it was not a 5 star luxury suite, but the patient got better. Plus, it is very likely that the bill will be covered by their US based health plan. Fill out a claim form, submit, and get payed back after they return to the US.

The bottom line is that they got good treatment. I wonder how many UK tourists ending up in UMDNJ can say the same.

Originally Posted by fxashun

I'll still pass on that...I have insurance. I always get private rooms. I like it like that.
But that's not really what I meant. I meant I'll take my "fair" plan over that system.

You could buy insurance and have private health care in Britain too. Then you get the country club atmosphere with piped music and 500 TV channels.

I wonder of the parents of that dead 15 year old girl think your US system is fair? Or that hairdresser in LA who has to find $200,000k?

Oh but I forgot you don't give a damn about them as long as you're ok!!





I'll take all the expensive technology and cleanliness over that place. My army hospital in the Philippines wasn't as bad as he described that place.

Most British hospitals I've seen are clean and comfortable, I think he went to an older one in Central London. There are probably similar examples in the centre of large US cities.

Not to mention the much higher tax burden that you failed to mention in your list of positives. Higher taxes levied on lower income doesn't sound like the scenario you've been touting.

Originally Posted by garysher

You could buy insurance and have private health care in Britain too. Then you get the country club atmosphere with piped music and 500 TV channels.

That's what I'm talking about.

I wonder of the parents of that dead 15 year old girl think your US system is fair? Or that hairdresser in LA who has to find $200,000k?

I don't know. But even in your country there are those that fall through the cracks. "Fair" and "feasible" are two different things.

Oh but I forgot you don't give a damn about them as long as you're ok!!

Actually, that's not entirely true. But I do think that you have to pay for care. And if you can't pay, you'd better be disabled or destitute. But if you can't pay because you didn't prepare for emergencies, didn't think you needed insurance, or any other reason, you are ass out. Nothing in this world is free. Healthcare is just another thing. I don't want to take food and quality of life from "my" family for the sake of someone who didn't prepare for theirs.
Most British hospitals I've seen are clean and comfortable, I think he went to an older one in Central London. There are probably similar examples in the centre of large US cities.

There is one in Atlanta. But they are the hospital where all the indigent are sent. It's about to get closed down due to the lack of funding. That's where my plan would help. All everyday care would be funded.

You are failing to mention the vast array of hidden charges every American pays to subsidise their shambolic health care system.

And you are acting like it can all be normalized. But with all the under and uninsured, there are billions of unaccounted for costs.

$1000 for the average new Ford or GM, 50c per Starbux, 5% of every airline ticket, etc etc

Or an extra 5 to 10% of extra percentage points on every dollar of income. I don't buy cars or fly anywhere that often. I'll pass.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars if yo uget sick and the insurance company bails out

Obviously you didn't read my plan...You are arguing the wrong thing...

Perhaps you prefer the smoke and mirrors approach???