Should we have National Health Ins? Please read

[anonymousperson]

As you probably guessed, I'm not for National Health Insurance. But, as you know, I have had a back injury, and could not walk for 8 days now. I am getting better, I've seen the dr.

So, he said I needed physical therapy. I've been in phys ther. before for similar injuries, and, I don't think it does much, but ok, I'll go.

I call Blue Shield, and they say my deductible is $2000 and I'm responsible for any phys ther up to that amt, and after that I will pay 30%.

Ok, so fine. So my DH takes me over to Star phys ther on Cleveland Street, and I'm thinking - ok, what is the most they'll charge me, $250?

I fill out the papers, and on the 2nd page it says for today session I will be paying......$797.

Seven hundred and ninety-seven dollars. For 30 mins, I think. Of phys therapy.

And they have a sign on the door, that says, if you cancel it's some amount.

So I tell my DH, we're not paying this. We can't afford that. I go up to the counter, and they were very nice but firm - "you can make payments". Uh, no, I do not want to.

I'm like, my DH works for himself, and we already pay out of pocket for our premiums, and $45 co-pay to the dr, each visit. And she was trying to convince me that those measly $45 go "towards your deductible" - sure, if you see the dr 200 times!

But even IF, IF, you only had to pay your "copay", it would be $240, for 30 mins or 60 (I have no idea how long my appt was for - I assume 30 mins), for that amount of time.

And you know, you can hire a deep tissue masseuse in Sonoma county for under $100 an hour.

But what a scam that is. Honestly. Scam. I told DH, I don't want to pay that. I'm getting better, let's go home.

Now getting back to my question - under National Health Ins, it would be paid for. That I would like. But, I think the quality of service would probably be terrible, like SF Kaiser Permanente or some other kind of cattle call.

And then the other awful thing is that no health insurance in the USA pays for IVF, to help women get pregnant. But that is also free in Europe and Canada.

So, I'm on the fence. On the one hand I think we can have great medical care here, the best. On the other, we are lacking things. The insurance companies need to make money, but they need to start responding to us.

[The Big Dog]

It would be "paid for" but at what cost? The first and most important would be rationing of that care. To keep "costs" down, care givers would only be allowed by the bureaucracy to give a certain number of treatments. This is practiced now, to some degrees, by HMO and PPO plans. I only get 30 days of PT post surgery, and my knees will likely require more work. I can go as much as I want / need / can stand during those 30 calendar days, but after that I am on my own.

IVF may be free in Canada and Europe, but someone is paying for it, and that would be the taxpayers. The socialized medicine crowd keeps dangling the "free" word in their arguments which, by human nature, a lot of people will bite on not understanding what it really costs.

What needs to happen in this country is real health care reform, and that starts with tort reform. Lets get the lawyers, like former candidate John Edwards as a prime example, out of the examination room. The cost of litigation, coupled with the cost of R & D, in this country is what continues to drive up health care costs faster than any other factor.

[saunterelle]

The truth is that McCain's plan does nothing to address the outrageous cost of health care in the United States. Obama's plan tackles the problem head on without resorting to a completely socialized program.

[harpman1]

Nothing is free. Nothing.

Folks who see National health care as free are self-relusional or dishonest.

It simply means having other people pay for your needs.

That, dear sirs, is Socialism.

It will not cost you less as you will be paying for your neighbor while he pays for you.

A shell game at best; a Ponzi debacle at worst.

It has never worked as well as free-market health care & never will.

The answer to health care is Capitalism. Providers vying for customers by offering better srevices at lower prices.

The same prescription as for education. Get the Govt. out of the business & out of the way & watch the problem solve itself.

[saunterelle]

Capitalism is the answer? What we have now is a capitalistic health care system and it is obviously failing.

Here is Obama's plan: www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

[harpman1]

We have at present anything but a capitalist system.

Between existing entitlements & the law stating no-one can be turned away from an ER, our system is almost Socialist as it is.

Examining the Canadian or British systems should convince anyone of the disaster that awaits us.

Get the Govt. almost completely out of the system & things will shake out cheaper & better than they are now.

[crossride]

I fail to see how Obama's plan will work. Its a great plan of course, it talks about more this, expanded that, funding everything else... but not much talk of how it's all going to be paid for. The numbers I saw are weak. 50 to 65 billion a year to fully fund it, but when the plan is to invest 10 billion a year in upgrading technology, I don't see how the whole thing only costs 50 to 65 billion. And how do we pay for all of it?

"A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do."

Not that I'm opposed to those methods of financing, but there will be far more need to for money than those sources. That will come from me, or from downsizing the grand plan. Or both.

I'm also concerned that the the plan is to simplify the paperwork and make it easier to enroll and get coverage. Call me cynical, but I see easy avenues for fraud which will wipe out any gains.

[crossride]

Interesting paragraph (to me anyway) from Obama's plan:

"Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle."

[jgaffney]

The United States has the best health care in the world. Anyone can walk into an emergency room at any time and get seen. State and federal laws prevent hospitals from turning you away at the emergency room, regardless of the nature of your complaint. The hospital, however, will do everything it can to get paid.

Having universal health insurance is not the answer. Even the posts above show that having health insurance doesn't mean that everything will be covered.

My brother checked himself into the hospital, complaining of chest pains. The doctor determined that he needed a stent, and ordered that he be transferred to another hospital where they could do the operation right away. My brother has Blue Cross, so there was no problem with authorizing the work. Because he was being transported under doctopr's orders, he got an ambulance ride. He was sitting up the whole time, joking with the EMTs.

When all the bills went through, Blue Cross rejected the payment for the ambulance ride. Their logic was that he wasn't bleeding, so it wasn't an emergency. My brother had to pay $1,200 out of pocket for a pretty expensive taxi ride.

[saunterelle]

So get the insurance companies out of it by going to a universal health care system. What is wrong with Canada's system? Harpman's plan would leave people dying in the streets.

[jgaffney]

Jul 22, 2008 14:18:25 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

So get the insurance companies out of it by going to a universal health care system. What is wrong with Canada's system? Harpman's plan would leave people dying in the streets.

Well, for one, I don't think most Americans would put up with it. Read this:

to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at a time when Canada’s population was aging and needed more care, not less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from government command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system.

You have read where people are complaining about Kaiser? Think Kaiser squared!

[anonymousperson]

The health insurance companies need to cover things like IVF, outpatient physical therapy, and being taken by ambulance, not discriminate based on weight, or past medical conditions, etc., in order to get medical insurance.

If anyone is currently in need of insurance, we got ours online at this great site (not shilling here, just informing), where you can compare plans and don't have to sign up:

www.ehealthinsurance.com/