Comparing Le Gran Fromage Weingarten to Bill O'Reilly...wow, what an apt comparison. Like Bill-O, Randi is a bully and a demagogue. She'll say anything to get her way, she lies without conscience and she surrounds herself w/ jackbooted thugs (like O'Reilly's infamous "Fox security"!!!!)who threaten and shout down any opposition or criticism.
Yes, a very apt comparison - Bill-O and Randi.
You know, the health care system here isn't nearly as expensive for most catastrophic emergencies as you've most likely been told.
I pay $50/mo., individually contracting with Blue Cross HMO for basic health insurance.
I just spent 3 days in an *out-of-network* hospital for a VERY bad dog bite - two broken bones around the knuckle of my finger, and my tendon 3/4 lacerated/severed. I'll be on IV antibiotics for a month, and had to have reconstructive surgery on my finger.
It'll take min. of 4 month to heal, but it should come back 100%.
Current out of pocket expense *total*? $180
Projected total out of pocket by the end? Under $1000
Think the gov't can do better, for an equal or lower premium? I sure don't - and I'm QUITE glad we have the system we do.
Children are a choice. No one is required to have children. What kind of moral nitwit thinks that they have the right to have children and have everyone else provide for those children?
Run this little experiment in your classrooms to demonstrate how give-a-aways funded by "the rich" always leads to poorer living conditions for all-all but the planners that is.
The wealth of a classroom is the demonstrated academic performance ofthe students. The only points that exist are those the students earn. Points just can't be summonded into existence no more than cars, milk, housing or medical care can be. All points must be produced. This is your GDP.
Now tell all the students that they have the right to passing grades and you, the teacher, will take from the "rich" to provide that right. Then go to round one.
The total points all students earn on a test are added up and divided by the total number of students. You will find, as I have, that the class average will be a C. The low performers will be happy and the "rich" will be pissed. Now on to round two.
Another test. This time the class average is F. No one passes. The "rich" quit working. The "poor" still demand their rights. What do you do?
You can't make up more points out of thin air any more than you can create another doctor, or house, or car, or meal. Someone has to physically produce that very item you wish to redistribute.
Now see I just happen to have the latest paystub sitting here -- need to get to the bank today -- and I just happened to notice that there was an employer contribution of $478.50 on this 2-week paycheck. That would imply that covering a family of 3 costs well over $1000 per month. Huh.
Well what I had been going to say is that I had something to add to the scare quotes: My husband's vote takes care of me and my whole family quite nicely, why would I want to give that up in favor of some unproven system that might vote rationing of one vote each?
Hope you make that full recovery with a minimum of pain, both physical and financial, Elaine. You'll forgive me for not counting your out-of-pocket-expenses until they are paid.
Shortwoman,
Good scare quote. Wish I had thought of it.
To all:
I'd appreciate it if we'd refrain from name-calling.
Thank you.
I am still skeptical. When Hilary wanted to do this, she was looking at "Managed Care". I would want a plan where the doctor and patient make all the decisions, not some civil servant who will deny a treatment the way I was denied a stress test because the "spikes weren't high enough" even though my doctor thought it was important.
It's interesting that wealthy people get a stress test as part of their physical.
Thank you for your well-wishes, Shortwoman.
Keep in mind, health care often costs more when you go through the employer. My same level of coverage, COBRA costs after I was laid off, was almost $800 per month. That was when I went solo... and haven't looked back since. I've since found new work (I'm actually a math teacher now!) and I keep my own coverage instead of taking the district choices. The overall cost is lower (though higher to me personally, because my district isn't paying it), I have more control, and a plan that suits me, not what my union thinks is best for me.
NYCE,
Where's the name-calling?
A very bad dog bite is not a catastrophic medical emergency. A catstrophic medical emergency might be when the breadwinner can't work for a year, when there's not enough insurance, when there's no insurance, and when people have to sell everything they own to pay a bill.
As NYC says, that's the numberone cause op bankruptcy in this country.
Disability insurance is a necessity too. I had it for many years, and I only needed to use it once and thankfully for a few months, but I was glad to have it. Once I retire, I will no longer need it, but I still feel secure with that additional safety net.
Sally, it depends on the dog bite. If it turns out the joint is infected, I'll lose the finger. If not, things will turn out alright.
Also, my father lost 3 fingers when I was in middle school, due to a power saw. I'm also a violinist (teach and play at the professional level - just not quite good enough to support myself if I chose that as a career.) ANYTHING serious happening to my hand is catastrophic. For the non-subjective perspective... well, a nearly severed tendon isn't minor. I mean, I literally can't use my left hand until Dec. at the earliest.
As for funding... There are about 3 important factors that saved me from being wiped out. 1)If I'd been paying for COBRA, instead of switching to my own insurance, I'd have significantly less funds. 2)I got married about a month before my accident... I can't start numbering the ways my husband has helped - and not just financially. 3) I was saving up to buy a house - If I were solely responsible for a house & this had happened - I'd probably lose the house.
So the real reason this hasn't wiped me out has NOTHING to do with my health insurance - which happens to be pretty awesome. It has everything to do with how my life is outside of the insurance. So changing my insurance won't help - it can only hurt because I would lose control over it.
Disability insurance is different than health insurance. The AFT also offers it.
Elaine, you seemed to have made a smart choice by getting your own insurance, I am sure it's expensive, but my GHI doesn't cover the doctors I want to use for my surgery, so I have to pay out of pocket.
Is there *any* argument against universal health care that you'd accept as valid? I've written several posts on the topic lately--you'll find them on my blog with the tag/label "socialism". Just click that tag in the left column.
I'd like to think I do a little more than just throw out scary terms, that I actually have valid arguments, but go see for yourself.
Oh, and the statement about catastrophic illness being the #1 cause of bankruptcy? Not quite as clear as it seems. It includes gambling addiction and similiar events as "illnesses".
Here's an article citing a Harvard study that says it is:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/
n...ptcy_study.html
There is probably no argument you could make to persuade me. I have seen many right wing arguments against national health, including the one from O'Reilly that I cited, and I find them unpersuasive.
There are reasons why I don't come over to your blog and try to talk you into voting for John Edwards.
The problem with your whole premise is that our health care system has been nationalized too much as it is. We have been on a downhill slide ever since Medicare was introduced by LBJ. Further nationalization of our health care system will simply turn us into Canada and Great Britain where care is rationed, wait lists are long, and in the case of Canada, people cross into the U.S. to get prompt health care here.
Once again, the left (including you, apparently) are trying to impose their beliefs on me. I don't want to live under a socialized national health care system. Quit trying to push one on me!
I'm not sure what you mean by care being "rationed" in the UK. My husband lived most of his life in the UK and had the NHS, of course. When he needed to see his doctor, he always got an appointment within a few days of when he called. His mother has MS and she has never had a problem getting treatment, even in the remote area of Scotland in which she lives.
The problems that he has mentioned with health care in the UK--waits to see specialists, waits for elective surgeries--are, as far as I can tell, comparable to problems with private care here.
I'm not convinced, based on my own experiences and those of people I know, that having a private health care system makes me feel safer or healthier than my Canadian or British counterparts.
yo miss in bushwick says, "The problems that he has mentioned with health care in the UK--waits to see specialists, waits for elective surgeries--are, as far as I can tell, comparable to problems with private care here."
A professor from Britain says, "Cancer care is a particularly shocking concern. More than half of all patients do not see a cancer specialist. We have only 340 clinical oncologists; in the USA I think the figure is 20,000 for a population only five times bigger. Hardly surprisingly, UK survival rates are very poor."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is too easy to find plenty of info on the sorry state of health care in Britain and Canada. And again, the major problems we see with health care in the U.S. are mainly caused by government meddling.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf...h_ss/
spiers.htm
In that article from 2001, the professor makes some claims that are outrageous. They're disgraceful if they're true.
I don't know a lot about England, but the problems here, like bankruptcy due to catastrophic medical emergency, millions uninsured and underinsured, and many Americans who don't qualify to buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions, are very serious.
The question is what progress are we making. I don't see any.
^ Which is my point: I am not convinced that the prices we pay as a society--not just in hard costs, but in the costs of people going bankrupt, the working poor not being able to afford even basic preventive care, etc.--are justified by some much higher standard of health. I feel comfortable trusting the many people I personally know who live with the NHS and are quite happy with it, and who would never in a million years want the system we have here.
Chanman, I know people in the States who have had to wait to see specialists, particularly people who do not live in urban areas and don't have a wide variety of doctors from which to choose. The same goes for non-emergency surgeries. Maybe it's less likely that people in NYC and the surrounding areas experience such a wait, but I'm from a much smaller town and am used to people either going to the big cities or waiting for non-emergency health care. Heck, my old family doctor would be booked solid for weeks at a time for preventive exams--I usually had to see a nurse practitioner or a PA if I didn't want to wait 8+ weeks for an appointment.
So what are we paying for here? And wouldn't it be worth it for us, as a society, to decide that it's important that everyone be able to have access to health care regardless of ability to pay?
Commenting by HaloScan
