"That's your problem, not mine"
The Republican that will run against Cory Booker in October is Steve Lonegan,
an avid supporter of Tea Party politics. While Booker is considered a
favorite by Democrats, those on the far right can find a friend in
Lonegan. Continuing the theme of anti-Obama rhetoric, Lonegan spoke to a
group of supporters last year, attacking President Obama over his health care reform and even took shots at Republican governor Chris Christie for not being hard enough on the program. Speaking to the crowd,
Lonegan stated that he didn't think the government had any part to play in providing health care, even to those who are the least fortunate. He
went as far as to say he didn't wish people to get cancer, but if they
did, that was their problem and not his.
"I'll be as callous and uncaring as you can imagine. I
have no interest in paying for your health care. I'd hate to see you get
cancer, but that's your problem, not mine. I'm going to pay for my
health care, I'm going to take care of my children's health care and
tend to my wife. And when I stand for charity care (inaudible), you
[and] no one else has the authority to infringe on my right (inaudible)
dig into my pocket and my ability to pay for your health care or anybody
else's."
Image via
a little bit of this, a lttle bit of that, a little more of...
I fully agree with Mr. Lonegan, except that I don't think that he's being at all callous.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that means when you pay for your and your families healthcare that you'll do it entirely out of pocket without the benefit of insurance whatsoever.
DeleteYou wouldn't want to be a hypocrite and have other people pay for your healthcare, would you?
You do realize that's how it works right? You don't pay into insurance like a bank, and whenever you've used up your specified amount of healthcare, you aren't declined and required to pay for it out of pocket.
No, the rest of that money comes from other people who are paying for your healthcare for you.
Because we live in a CIVILIZATION, we are not all unique individual entities able to function completely without the help of others.
Welcome to society, I hope you enjoy it.
Mr. Lonegan's filings indicate that in 2012 he had a half million dollars in income, so it's possible that he pays cash for his medical care related to his blindness and for the health care of his wife and children.
DeleteBut I bet not. I'll bet he has health insurance that he chooses to purchase. You probably do too, John. If so, then every year that you file claims in excess of your premiums, others participants are paying for your health care. And every year that you don't file claims, you're paying for the health care of others. Their health is every bit your problem, as your health is theirs.
Even when it's voluntary.
Especially when it's voluntary.
I'm not sure this is an accurate description of how insurance works, Minnesostan. That's like saying I'm paying for everyone else's automobile repairs because I pay car insurance, even if I don't have a wreck. Insurance is a business, and insurance companies do the payouts. I am not "paying" for someone else's repairs, be they automobile or medical, the company pays for it. They are simply using statistics that we all won't wreck and/or get sick and setting the rates accordingly.
DeleteBrad, I don't know what auto insurance company you have. I have State Farm, which is "mutual" insurance company. Everyone who has a policy pays for everyone's (covered) repairs and losses. If in a given year the company pays out more than it receives, then the next year the policy premiums go up to make up the difference (and supposedly the reverse). (Less expenses for management, shareholder dividends, lobbying, etc).
DeleteIf you didn't have a wreck (but paid premiums), that money was used to pay for someone else's car repairs.
That's how it works. Honest.
Yes, I know that is true. But at the point that I write the check to cover my car, it is not "my" money. It belongs to State Farm Insurance, and I'm not paying for repairs, they are. State Farm pays for it. (I have Alpha, but I'm sure it is similar.) I realize that there are laws that force insurance companies to keep money in the 'pool' for a certain number of years, but after that, they get to keep the profits. Also, it isn't only a matter of pay out/intake, there is also the function of competition that helps control rates. (Right?)
DeleteAlso, everyone in the mutual pool, even if it works like you said, are in it voluntarily and are paying (basically) the same rates if cars are the same, risk the the same, etc. In a universal system, some are not contributing to the pool. It's a different animal at that point, right? That's not a comment on the rightness/wrongness of it, just an observation.
The difference is in choice. If I join an insurance pool (that is, purchase insurance), I have volunteered to pool my risk and benefits with other people. I can change pools, or decide not to carry insurance, whenever I wish.
DeleteIf government pays for health care, it is done using money extracted from people by force. There's no choice there.
Wayne, you're correct. You are volunteering to pool your risks and benefits with others. Then your group can exclude people who are at risk of getting sick (and sometimes you can even kick people out when they do get sick).
DeleteNow, after your pool of people reaches a good size, the administrator of the pool goes up to Dr. Clark and her colleagues at St. Elsewhere Hospital and negotiate rates. In exchange for your umpty-three patients going there for care, she and the hospital agree to charge you lower rates.
Dr. Clark and her colleagues at St. Elsewhere still have to make payments on their boats, however, so they then charge higher rates to people who are not in groups like yours. Those people are thereby subsidizing your lower cost of health care.
Wayne, let me also direct Brad's analogy toward you. When you say "The difference is in choice" - I wonder if in your state there is a choice whether or not to buy automobile insurance.
DeleteMost states mandate that everyone have auto insurance. Are you opposed to that? Do you feel people should drive around uninsured?
@Brad - you're welcome to think that way, if it makes you more comfortable, but I just can't. Let me present the logic in this fashion:
DeleteIf I give offerings to my church and the Finance Committee decides (after some disagreement) to repave the parking lot, I suppose someone could argue that MY money was not used for that asphalt. That MY money was expended on the pastor's salary and the downtown food pantry. Someone might say that (you might) - but I can't. Once I'm supporting a group, I'm supporting in some minuscule fashion every activity of that group. Perhaps $1.32 of my offering money is in that parking lot.
Similarly, when you pay taxes to your country or state, (some of) your money is supporting everything that entity does, because the money is fungible. If your state provides abortion counseling, some residents will object. You can tell them that THEIR money is used for the state park system and schoolbooks, but not the abortion counseling. They won't believe you.
M., If your point is that private insurance is has inequities, I've no argument with that. I will say that those who end up subsidizing my health care have the choice to go elsewhere (although, my impression being that the free market is not fully in effect in health care, the choices might not be all that different).
DeleteMy state (Arizona) does require mandatory auto liability insurance. I'm not sure what I think about that. I do think that state-mandated private auto insurance, on a scale of things government can force me to do, doesn't seem as big a risk to liberty as does a federal government insurance program. The practical problem is that when large amounts of money flow through government coffers, it invariably increases the power of government. I think our federal government long ago surpassed the amount of power it ought to have.
@Wayne - " I think our federal government long ago surpassed the amount of power it ought to have."
DeleteThis is a point we can both agree on.
Hmm... let me add in one or two more considerations on this.
DeleteFirst, the purpose of "required" auto insurance to to make sure that you can cover your side of liability in an accident. Typically this done through insurance. However, there is also the option that you declare you have sufficent assets to cover the liability yourself, and post a bond for it. That's the case in my state, and I know a couple of people who have done this -- they declared part of their assets in a long term investment (like in a 401 K) against this. They can't touch the money while its declared a bond against potential liability, but they can earn interest on it while its sitting there. They felt it was a better deal for them, rather than pay an insurance company to do the same (and make profit for the insurance company to watch the money sit.)
Second, in considering insurance its not just the annual revenues and payments in a pool -- its the interest earned on unexpended funds, or interest paid to borrow money to cover any shortfalls. Most of the time actuarial data is used so that the risk for payment are covered by payments from the demographic profile of people in the pool. For example, if you had a pool (a "mutual") of people whose average age was 70, you would expect the annual expenses to be more for medical or death benefits. So they would pay more per year than the average. Similarly, a pool of 25 year olds would pay less -- since their annual medical and death benefits would be less, but also since by paying a little more now, the pool can put it into long term investments so when the money is needed 30-40 years from now, the participants in the pool can draw upon those funds, and not pay increased fees each year.
Wales, how should the pools be decided? By age? Gender? Education level? City of residence? City of employment? Income level?
DeleteAge would seem to be the best way to draw the lines, right? Except that by doing so, insurance for older people will outstrip their income. How much do you think that health insurance for a 70-year old would cost on an actuarial basis? I bet it is far more than they can afford.
But nearly everyone gets old, don't they? So why not just ignore age when determining the pools? Because that would make insurance less attractive for other groups, such as the young and healthy.
The line-drawing is a big part of the problem. It is done to maximize profits of the insurance companies, not to cover the most people in the best way. That is why health insurance companies would deny insurance to certain people (either by doing it outright or making the rates very high) - because by excluding expensive-to-service people, they could keep rates down and gain more customers.
No matter how you draw the lines, there will still be subsidies flowing from one person to another in some way. That is why universal coverage is best, with rates based on income (i.e. taxes).
And I thought that that race couldn't get any easier for Booker.
ReplyDeleteI'm with John - and Mr. Lonegan. It's time we moved off the dole and stopped expecting others to pay our way.
ReplyDeleteIf your neighbourg gets a flu, or some contagious disease,
ReplyDeleteand don't cure because of money,
don't you think it might becomes a matter of yours?
It's beyond fellings as generosity or greedness,
health is public anyhow.
This guy makes me sick, for free!
Well now, you're expecting them to actually think. Must not make that mistake!
DeleteAs far as charming men go, it sounds like he'd struggle to charm the bluebottles off a dog turd. And I thought British politicians were bad...
ReplyDeleteOK you fuckers who talk about 'choice'.
ReplyDeleteI was born - born, I say - with haemophilia. Because I live in a country with state provided healthcare, this hasn't been a problem. But suppose I wanted to - as many people do - purchase health insurance to minimise waiting and other minor inconveniences. That would be me exercising a choice, right?
Can't do it. Insurance companies won't pay out for anything related to haemophilia, which includes the Factor VIII that would be needed to ensure I didn't bleed to death after any operation I might need - knee replacement, hip replacement, appendectomy.
Exactly how do I exercise this illusory 'choice' that you seem to think everyone has? And that's just one example of the abject failure of your arguments - and those of the Teabagging candidate.
The last place I worked that offered health insurance was charging $800 a month for a family plan, meaning they paid a couple hundred a month and took the $800 out of the paycheck. Since I was only making $1300 a month, I had to let that go. Now I have two jobs, neither of which offer any insurance. And I'm in my 50s now, so private insurance would still cost the majority of my wages. Luckily, my husband has Medicare and my kids are covered under the state CHIP. But me? I work, so no insurance for me! People in my position cannot afford to be callous.
ReplyDeleteUnder Obamacare, my state has decided not to participate in expanded Medicaid, which I might have qualified for, since I was close already, but we'll never know. I'm actually looking forward to October to find out how much mandated coverage will cost.
Why is it that "health insurance" and "health care" are treated as the same concept? Having insurance - be it private or government coverage - does not mean you actually have health care. Health insurance is, basically, the money. Health care is seeing the doctor/nurse/dentist/etc., getting the meds/therapy/operation/treatment/etc. needed.
ReplyDeleteAnd trading private insurance for government-controlled insurance is going from bad to worse. How is a government that has us over $16 trillion in debt going to manage the money for health care? Or the bureaucracy - the IRS - that pays out millions (or is it billions?) in refunds and benefits to people who don't pay taxes or who file fraudulently for those benefits going to manage people getting the health care they need? Yes, health insurance companies can be a royal pain. They pick and choose which medicines/treatments/etc. they will cover; this makes for a really lousy day when they don't cover what one needs. But that is because they are, in many cases, for-profit corporations; a business out to do what businesses do: make money. How startling. But what is the government's motive for picking and choosing? Because they do and will.
Of course no one has a choice in the health problems they face, be it as serious as hemophilia or as common as a cold. (Unless they are rather self-inflicted, of course - I know my back is better on days when I exercise, but there are still days I choose not to exercise.) The choice is in how a persons deals with their health problems. And the government doesn't have the right to tell me what kind of health coverage I should choose (if I can get it), what doctor I should see or when, or anything else. Helping out people who can't help themselves? Fine. But forcing everyone into a system they didn't choose? Seriously messed up.
And regarding that system: the state I live in started implementing parts of the new health care law over a year ago. Which meant that I LOST insurance coverage. My health insurance is a product I pay for. I knew what I was getting, and what I had to pay to get it. Then the new health care law. Coverage down, premiums up. And I was already putting half my income towards health care, even with insurance.
Yes, we need to do something for people who are in need of assistance. But the President's plan is beyond asinine. For instance, (as I understand it) if you're a senior over 75, and you get cancer, under Obamacare's rules you don't get any Medicare to pay for your treatment. My aunt is over 75, and has cancer, and I'm very grateful that my uncle can afford to pay for her treatment out of pocket. But once my parents hit 75, they're not in that boat. Barring sudden wealth, they won't have that kind of money at age 75+.
P.S. Mr. Anonymous with Hemophilia called waiting a "minor inconvenience". I'll be sure to tell that to my other aunt, whose mother, native and resident of a country with nationalized health care, died because she had to wait for her treatment. Her government said it wasn't her turn.
Funny thing about nationalized health care, it doesn't actually stop private health insurance companies from operating for those who want to pay for it. It just means that those who can't afford it can actually get treatment if they need it.
DeleteBut it doesn't mean that those who can't afford it get treatment if they need it. That's why my aunt's mother died: she couldn't afford it, and so she had to wait in line to get treated for an illness that required immediate treatment. By the time it was her turn, there was nothing that could be done.
DeleteSo because nationalized healthcare doesn't always get optimal results for the less wealthy, we should not have it and always get bad results for the less wealthy?
DeleteNot all nationalized healthcare systems are created equally, even the good ones are not perfect (news flash, America's private system produces a bunch of really bad results too, even amongst the insured). But none of that changes the fact that healthcare is a necessity that we should attempt to provide regardless of economic status.
P.P.S. That was a lot longer than I thought. Sorry for that.
ReplyDelete"But the President's plan is beyond asinine. For instance, (as I understand it) if you're a senior over 75, and you get cancer, under Obamacare's rules you don't get any Medicare to pay for your treatment."
ReplyDeleteOf course you know this isn't true, right?
I've heard this lie, and versions of this lie, from about 90 people, via email and FB, over the past two years.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp
And here's a question I'd like all you who think we should get off the "dole" of health insurance: what exactly do you think we should do when our citizens are injured or ill?
Last year (for instance) I broke my foot. Let's say I had been even poorer than I actually am. Let's say I had not had health insurance. The bill to fix my foot at the ER and then the orthopedists topped out at over to $4000, which I will tell you I did not have -- not even close to that -- without insurance.
What would you have done? Left me broken? That would have left me unable to work. I would now be a beggar, a charge upon society. This was not a crippling injury. It was a minor break. But if I could not pay for the medical care, it would have destroyed my ability to be a functional, productive member of society.
Is that your plan? Just let productive members of society die? Or be crippled?
Who supports their children? Who supports them, once they can't work, because they're maimed and useless?
If I can't get minor screening and preventive care, who pays for my long-term illness when I have a stroke? You're going to leave hundreds of thousands of stroke victims lying in the gutters? That's the country you'd rather live in?
And so on.
I really don't think you've thought this through.
Of course you don't leave someone broken. My point is not that we don't need a change, but that this is not the right one.
DeleteYou seem to be under a false assumption that most of us believe this is the right and final solution. We know it's not. What the vested interests (namely people making all the money) were doing was using the notion that until we find the right and perfect solution that we should do nothing. This worked well on the American public because we fear change and if we didn't know for sure that the change was good, we'd fight it. Of course, not everyone agrees on what the "right" changes are and there's no way to be sure that any change will work out as planned. The purpose of this legislation is to break the deadlock and inaction. Now virtually everyone agrees we need to change it and soon.
DeleteAny human civilization beyond a small town is complex and when it becomes the size of the United States, it becomes a Rube Goldberg machine of epic proportions. Problems are not going to have simple or perfect solutions nor are they likely to ever be permanently solved. You have to continually tweak the system as you go. And the health care debate is just another bump in the road. At least the road block of inaction has finally been breached.
I still find the american health system stunning. I live in New Zealand and we have a national health service; even the most right-wing of our political parties would never make a statement like the gentleman (in the loosest possible sense) above. As it happens the greatest risk to our public health system I can currently identify is the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal and the conditions that are rumoured to prohibit a national drug buying agency like we have in New Zealand (Pharmac).
ReplyDeletePharmac has been one of the huge contributors to NZ having one of the most efficient health care services in the world. As an example, typical prescriptions cost $NZ5 (which is subsidised) to be filled, and this is usually 3 months worth. If you need more that 20 prescriptions in a year there is no longer a charge and there is no charge for prescriptions for children under 6. This is made possible by a nation-wide version of what the insurance companies do so everyone benefits. Medical insurance is available in New Zealand and medication can be purchased independently for those who wish to but the national health service has so far treated me very well.
The national health care system does come with issues, I am not trying to pretend that it is perfect, examples include the debate that is held in New Zealand on a regular basis about access to expensive pharmaceuticals typically for rare and chronic disease. However if the other option is the 'bugger the other guy, I'm OK' attitude of the story above I am more than happy with that trade-off. I find it hard to reconcile that attitude with the generally lovely individuals that I have met from the US.
To allow a system where the weakest are systematically provided with the worst care is to my mind ludicrous and quite out of step with what would be expected in a first world nation (and honestly in many so called third world nations).
You're damn right it's ludicrous & out of step with what would be expected in a first world nation, let alone the richest country on the planet. Unfortunately, you must take into consideration that this law comes down from a half black president, which is really what their problem is. They'd jump off a cliff if a white Republican president told them to. (inside job false flag wars for profit)You seem to have a good grasp of the situation, but you can't truly know how bad it really is. This Booker cretin represents the entire Republican party's (what paltry crumbs remain of it) philosophy. No matter that people work their fingers to the bone, & still can't afford health insurance, or have been denied coverage, let them die. They embarrass the hell out this country.
DeleteOpposition to this law has nothing to do with the President's genealogy: it's because the law itself is messed up, and was pushed through Congress with hardly any of them having read the dang thing. Senator Pelosi even said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."
DeleteAnd the Booker cretin does not represent the entire Republican party's philosophy. He certainly doesn't represent mine. I'm all for helping people who can't help themselves. I prefer it to be done through the private sector (there's this thing known as charity), but when it can't be, it makes sense to do it through the government. What gets me so ticked off are the people who milk the system because they're lazy. There are too many people who can work, but won't. Very "Grasshopper and the Ants"; but the grasshopper character learned his lesson, while the lazy people just keep on with their laziness, taking benefits that should be going to those who are genuinely unable to work or unable to pay for their family's needs.
There are several reasons for opposing Obamacare. My personal reason? The government is not seen as trustworthy running a program of this size, scope, and importance.
DeleteLook at the modern issues that the government has "handled":
1) Social Security. Hey, it worked for a time. The future of this program looks quite dim, however.
2) Post Office. The USPS was working quite well, then government officials decided to force the USPS to pre-fund the pensions of their employees. Now they are deeply in the red every year, have had to dramatically raise prices over the last few years, and reduce service and postal offices in many locations.
3) Healthcare (Medicare and Medicate). People on both sides of the aisle admit there is a huge problem and we are in dire need of healthcare reform.
4) Education. Hey, it worked for a while! It seems that the more the government gets involved in fixing education, the worse the outcome for the students. Of course, common core will fix every problem.
5) The War on Drugs. Apparently our leaders skipped the Prohibition era of US History. No worries though. We can always build more prisons.
6) The War on Poverty. More wealth is held today by the top 1% in our nation than at any time in this nation's history.
7) Immigration (legal and illegal). Nice job fixing the issue. Lets ignore the problem for a couple decades and see if it goes away. Granting amnesty to groups periodically and unpredictably is a far worse approach than real immigration reform.
8) Green Energy Campaign. Dismal failure. 8000 jobs were created, and a very slim number of those were retained 6 months later. Those jobs cost American taxpayers $60k per job created.
9) Foreign Policy. I'm so glad that my sons never remember a time when this nation wasn't at war. Now, it looks like we'll get to bomb Syria. Good plan. This is surely a healthy and sustainable policy.
Beyond all this, the number of times this administration (and the Bush administration before this one) lied to the American people is astounding. Even if the folks in charge of administering Obamacare are well-meaning and not corrupt (a stretch), I think this is a program that is doomed to fail and actually cause health care prices to greatly increase while miring this nation in deeper debt.
Maybe government in New Zealand is more efficient simply because of the much smaller population and area administered. I'm not sure. All I know is that the government of the USA is more recently know for ineptitude, failure, and corruption than anything else.
I should have added another big issue:
Delete10) Disability benefits for the military. Tragic failure, and absolutely inexcusable.
I'm sure there are many others, but someone's comments below reminded me of this huge problem. The government is inefficient at best and corrupt at worst. It can't solve our health care crisis.
@Barnabas:
DeleteI see your point but, there's something that you need to factor in. There's roughly 50% of the people in charge of the government who have a vested interest in making sure that the government agencies do not work. Many politicians are heavily invested in industries that either compete for government work or work in areas that are harmful to the common good of the human race if they are not watched carefully. These industries are more successful and make these politicians more money if government fails. So they do everything in their power to make sure it does. Despite this, most government agencies still find a way to make things work though obviously not without major problems.
Trash and proud to be trash. Probably considers himself a good Christian too. Sickening.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it true that the members of the Tea Party closely identify with fundamental Christian values? And isn't it true that Mr. Lonegan's remarks are in utter contradiction to such Christian values?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it true that the members of the Tea Party closely identify with fundamental Christian values?
DeleteNo, it isn't. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
And isn't it true that Mr. Lonegan's remarks are in utter contradiction to such Christian values?
Jesus advocated giving to the poor. He did not advocate stealing from people to give to the poor. You're thinking of Robin Hood. Different guy.
Anon, I think these data from the Pew Center (in 2011) will address your question:
Delete"The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right. An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about “the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right”; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree.3 More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it)."
From "people". Clever choice of words "John Farrier", but I think anybody with half a brain knows better.
DeleteSteve - I agree that this man probably purports to be religious and it's disgusting. What has happened to common decency? Imagine Jesus saying "your cancer is your problem, not mine". The fractures in our society are only widening and I truly hate to think where this will end up.
ReplyDeleteEventually it will end up with people who believe in a common society rising up and disposing of people like this. It happens time and again. I not sure when it will happen but, I am sure it will and they're terrified of it. You don't think the NSA spying really has anything to do with terrorism?
DeleteSo if said jackasd politico suffers a financial calamity, while his children get into a horrid wreck as he gets a leukemia diagnosis, he will just lay down and die huh? How fast would he grab onto the new healthcare? How fast would his teaparty gop thugs abandon him?
ReplyDeleteI've lost over a million dollars, multiple houses after decades in a high physical risk environment. I worked for every penny. I'd never deny someone a chance to survive. I bet mr politico thinks paying for multi million dollar missiles incinerating women and children is a great thing, hey look at those sweeeet stock quotes, sexxxy." Was it a blow to the head mr politico? The wire mommt model? That closed down the mirror cells in your occular lobes? Trust me- forced to pay for this guts me too, that is not right esp as banks recieve trillions of our dollars and the pentagon so much more so "defence" contractors can sell us more tanks we don't need. 2 wars illegal as hell, would of paid for so much here..... but hey maybe I'm just callous ay?
When I think about "government run" healthcare, I think of Tricare for the military. Airman basic? You are covered. Four star general? Yep, care for you as well. Child of staff sergeant becomes seriously ill? It's taken care of.
ReplyDeleteWas there a choice of doctors? Sometimes. Definitely now, on Tricare standard- one can pay more and be seen off base. In emergencies, how many people say, Hey wait! I want to chose my own doctor! No one does. They head to the ER, just wanting their problem fixed as quickly as possible. Our family was treated in military facilities for fractures, births, kidney disease,lupus,bone tumor, sepsis,etc. I have not noticed a difference in the standard of care between local hospitals and military treatment facilities, with the exception of less-fancy buildings, which seem a waste of money. I was offered a choice of doctors when faced with a tumor, with one military doctor saying, Let me make a call, I know someone at a university hospital in the next city who might want to put you in a trial. Best advice, ever, 12 years later.
I am writing this as many people regard military members as very conservative. And yet, the military support system is quite liberal, with the idea that taking care of military members and their families means better focus at work and on a mission.
Under Obamacare, one of our adult children is covered by Tricare for awhile longer, for $174 a month as his place of employment does not offer health insurance. I keep wondering, what are the true costs of single payer and would it look like an expanded version of Tricare?
I am a Canadian and am covered under a national healthcare plan. Works pretty well. Perfect? Of course not, but you don't have to worry about going bankrupt because of an illness. It is not a public/private system, and doctors cannot opt out of government medicare, although a few procedures can be private. Of course if you're wealthy and are willing to pay you can go to the US. Not better care, but you jump the queue. I doubt Mr Lonegan would garner %1 of the vote if he ran for office in Canada
ReplyDeleteTo KRUTH - I care not one iota about your opposition to any human being that needs medical treatment getting it. If *anyone* needs to see a doctor regardless of their employment status, they have the right to be treated as any other human being. I feel sorry for you people that think your lives are worth more than others. Got news for you - it isn't.
ReplyDeleteGet all the healthcare that you can acquire without coercion.
DeleteKeep your hands off my wallet.
I didn't say people shouldn't get medical care if they need it, and I don't believe my life is worth more than any other person's. I said that people who refuse to do for themselves when they are capable of it shouldn't demand that other people do for them. And I'm referring to adults - not kids, so don't go off on that idea, either.
DeleteThe health of this country should concern every American. What some of you don't seem to understand, is that we have always paid for ones who go to ER's uncovered, via outrageous hospital costs. Who do you think paid it? Sure wasn't the insurance companies. Once again, I care not if any human being in 21stcentury ,can afford to lay out half of their salary every month to an insurance co., or unemployed, I'm willing to do my part to see that they get the medical care that every human being deserves. It's simply the right thing to do. This isn't a damn jungle, & no person is an animal. Lest you assume I'm one of them, you'd be wrong again.
Delete"The world's richest country spends more of its money on health care while getting less than almost every other nation in return."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/most-efficient-healthcare_n_3825477.html
That is true; it is beyond mindboggling to know that we pay triple & quadruple or even more for the exact same treatment & meds that other advanced countries pay. That is just another huge injustice that this new health law attempts to correct. Insurance co's will now be forced to pay 80% of every bill that they process, instead of pocketing it. All of these health related costs (atrocities) that are heaped upon us will not be fixed overnight, but it's a step. It is the insurance theft, fraud & the laws that have protected them that contribute to keeping those prices astronomical. I know for a fact that a Dr. office charges an out of pocket payer much less than an insured patient, & it's not all because of the paperwork that it costs to file, either. The insurance co's & big pharma have simply gotten away with legal theft, as have bankers, real estate co's, etc., etc. Capitalistic greed gone amok.
DeleteHere, I'll say what no one else has mentioned: Single payer health care. People can still have private insurance that covers more niceties - it certain works in Europe while reducing costs and increasing positive health outcomes.
DeleteIt's funny how all these republicans are suddenly against a policy that was developed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to HillaryCare in the mid 1990s. This program was also successfully implemented by Mitt Romney in MA.
Let's also put a tax on sugar, fat, and salt - if you want to endanger your health, you can pay for it. If you smoke, an actuary should figure out how much each cigarette could potentially cost you in health care and the cigarette should be taxed accordingly.
"Let's also put a tax on sugar, fat, and salt - if you want to endanger your health, you can pay for it. If you smoke, an actuary should figure out how much each cigarette could potentially cost you in health care and the cigarette should be taxed accordingly"
DeleteYour last suggestion opens up a large can of worms that I've often wondered about. Would you also put a tax on skateboards to cover the cost of caring for the occasional fractured wrist? Skateboarding is after all not a necessary human activity. How about a tax on snow skis to offset the cost of skiing injuries (an actuary could figure out how much to tax each skiier per ski purchase, or perhaps per lift ticket).
Precisely, Minnesotastan. Let us not forget to tax all of the poor sods who actually have the audacity to draw a breath! How dare they?! I agree & love your blog. :)
DeleteSingle payer, non-profit, universal health care is the only model that will satisfy both the moral imperative of caring for others and doing it at a sustainable price. Insurance companies exist to profit their stockholders and enrich their executives, not to make sure people have healthcare. They are middlemen who restrict coverage to increase profits and do nothing to improve efficiency. They constantly insert themselves between us and our doctors, and yet people are terrified of the government. Pharmaceutical companies charge as much as they can get away with.
ReplyDeleteThere are things that are important enough to be better left to government. Anyone who thinks the government takes too much of their money should see what for-profit companies would charge for roads and bridges, the military, national security, water supply and sewage, and so on. Actually, we have seen some of that when government hands the job over to contractors. It costs us much more, and causes all kinds of harm. Remember Blackwater?
Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance, and if it was allowed to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies and was universal, would actually be sustainable.
It's true that "Obamacare" won't work, but only because it had to compromise with profit-seeking industries, their lobbyists, and their bought and paid for politicians.