Tax-financed health care

Tobina+1 · June 26, 2009, 11:39:35 AM

LarryJ; that is awesome that you're able to enjoy retirement so completely! I think it is horrible how many people cannot have a true retirement and still have to continue to work to support themselves, or even just to support their medicare/medicaid payments! I can understand if someone just wants to work so they can have extra fun things to buy, but I feel horrible for those elderly (and I mean elderly) who have no one to support them and they have to work almost until they die!

So whose fault is it that medical costs are as high as they are today? Is it the insurance companies, or is it the doctors/medical companies? I think that medical companies have started charging SO much b/c the insurance companies make them write off so much of the cost and they only get reimbursed for part of it. So a $40 exam is now priced at $80, but the doctor will still only get $40 from the insurance company. In the meantime, they still charge everyone $80, even those who don't have insurance.

jerry wagner · June 26, 2009, 11:54:08 AM

Quote from: redcliffsw on June 26, 2009, 10:37:18 AM

That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.

Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.

The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.

And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means? I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.

larryJ · June 26, 2009, 01:32:33 PM

Tobina, I am fortunate that I worked for a company that had a retirement plan and a 401k plan for me. So retirement is as good as it can be for us. We are comfortable, not rich financially, and would probably do some more projects if we weren't so lazy. Wait a minute. I think I said we weren't lazy. Oh well. Anyhow, we are somewhat hampered by the 50' hose attached to my face and the amount of hours in an oxygen bottle when we go out, but that is not so bad.

As far as those elderly who are faced with no means of support, my father-in-law came to live with us eleven years ago. His only income was his SS check. He was abused by his second wife and my wife brought him here. We got him divorced and settled him into our home. He volunteered to pay us some money to cover his "room and board" as he called it. But if he didn't have family to support him, he would have been homeless and dead long before he died last year. He had lost his ability to drive and after only a few years here became dependent on a walker. He wouldn't have been able to work. His only other out was the VA which could have placed him in a nursing facility, but the waiting list was huge at that time. Anyway, he was fortunate to have us and we were fortunate to have him as long as we did.

Larryj

larryJ · June 26, 2009, 02:02:38 PM

Second note. The medical costs and the Doctors and the insurance companies form a "vicious cycle". The Doctor says, "I am going to charge this amount for an office visit because that is the going rate among my fellow Doctors." The patient carries insurance which allows him to pay the Doctor little or no money for a co-pay. The insurance company doesn't want to pay the Doctor the full amount of the cost of the office visit, so it contracts with the Doctor to pay a lesser amount guaranteeing the Doctor that he will be paid something rather than have a non-insured patient skip out on him. But now the Doctor is not getting the amount that he wants to charge and raises his rates because he has to give his employees a raise or buy more expensive and newer equipment. The insurance company usually working on a percentage basis of paying the Doctors then passes on the increase to the company that the patient works for and the company passes all or part of the increase on to the patient in the form of deductions from the paycheck. The patient sees the increase drawn from his paycheck and opts to change to a different insurance that might be cheaper. The Doctor meantime realizes he is losing a patient or two and maybe downgrades the cost of the office visit in order to maintain a steady clientele. The insurance company accepts the new rate and pockets the difference in the money received from the patients company and what it pays the Doctor. It is all a bunch of hogwash (there's that hogwash word again) and just goes on and on. My brother once told me I should just contract with the Doctor myself and I would be better off in the long run. I was too chicken to try that.

Larryj

redcliffsw · June 27, 2009, 10:59:59 AM

jerry wagner-
Your perspective of the country never existed until the socialists began
their activities in the middle 1800's and their perspective does not make it right either.

You mean that the Fed's should capture another's money or property
and then redistribute it to others?

Certainly, if one wants to help somebody, then that's on them and
their business. But, to make others donate is not right.

Anmar · June 28, 2009, 06:38:54 PM

Quote from: redcliffsw on June 27, 2009, 10:59:59 AM

You mean that the Fed's should capture another's money or property
and then redistribute it to others?

This kills me. The redistribution happens in the form of a service, not a direct payout. The service would be added to the other services that the federal government already runs. They already capture money and property to redistribute in the form of public education, police & fire departments, national defense, and a whole bunch of other services. Health Care would be just one service on a long list that might help us catch up to the rest of the developed countries that already provide this for their people.

redcliffsw · June 28, 2009, 07:45:32 PM

Calling it a "service" sounds so much better than using the term "socialism".
It might even be politically correct.

But...............I'm against it.

By the way, just because other countries are doing the "health care services",
does not mean a thing. We oughta remain unique and distinct, instead of
following them.

Anmar · June 29, 2009, 10:42:21 AM

Do you consider the police force and fire department socialist institutions also?

redcliffsw · June 29, 2009, 07:05:33 PM

No, why should I?

Although, I'll say the Fed's ought not supply the police and fire dept's with money or programs.

Varmit · June 29, 2009, 07:55:20 PM

Quote from: Anmar on June 28, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
This kills me. The redistribution happens in the form of a service, not a direct payout. The service would be added to the other services that the federal government already runs. They already capture money and property to redistribute in the form of public education, police & fire departments, national defense, and a whole bunch of other services. Health Care would be just one service on a long list that might help us catch up to the rest of the developed countries that already provide this for their people.

The rest of the developed countries...you mean like canada, and france, whose standard of medical has dropped through the floor? Where patients are denied life-saving medications based on an age bracket? Or medical procedures have such long waiting lists that the patients tend to die before treatment? Or where cancer rates are much higher because screenings are not conducted in time?...No thanks, if I wanted to live in a "nanny" state I'd move to one.