Health Care and/or Insurance

[Tweedling]

Is it our "right" to have?

[MattZ]

I suppose people can disagree on that question on moral grounds.

 

So instead, I am going to avoid the moral issue and just say that it makes complete sense from a cold hearted economic standpoint to have universal health care.

 

Paying to prevent illness, disease, etc. in the long run SAVES MONEY. Otherwise you have people showing up to hospital emergency rooms with conditions that are way worse because they have been untreated. This whole debate makes no sense to me. On moral or economic grounds.

[ikol]

I don't think you can have a right to something that someone else has to provide. For example, your right to life means that you have the right to not be killed, not that you have a right to be provided everything you need to live. Your right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to be published or broadcast. If you say that people have a right to healthcare, then where do you draw the line on what constitutes healthcare? Do you have a right to annual full body scans?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Right is a loaded term. I think all Americans should have access to healthcare, yes.

[Dreamin']

Is it our "right" to have?

Fortunately, it is my right to have.

 

(Thanks to Jack Bauer's grandfather.)

[bjorn_skurj]

It has been noted that for all the hand-wringing we do about socialized medicine in this country, we in essence have it, as if you don't have health insurance and get sick, you end up in the hospital and run up absurdly high bills. And that cost gets passed on to the taxpayers, who subsidize Medicare/Medicaid and the hospital system. I think there just needs to be a more efficient way to do it. No one but the most fringed of fringe groupers is suggesting that sick people be turned away from medical care because they can't pay for it. We're not that kind of society anymore.

[anodyne]

I don't think you can have a right to something that someone else has to provide. For example, your right to life means that you have the right to not be killed, not that you have a right to be provided everything you need to live. Your right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to be published or broadcast. If you say that people have a right to healthcare, then where do you draw the line on what constitutes healthcare? Do you have a right to annual full body scans?

 

 

so we don't have a right to safety?

[ikol]

so we don't have a right to safety?

 

Depends on what you mean by safety. If you mean protection from being injured or killed by another person, that's covered under our right to life and protected by anti-murder laws and the military. Obviously the government has to "provide" in that sense. That's not the same as saying that a right to safety means the government has to give motorcyclists free helmets.

[bobfrombob]

Fortunately, it is my right to have.

 

(Thanks to Jack Bauer's grandfather.)

I knew you would weigh in on this one

[Beltmann]

I don't think you can have a right to something that someone else has to provide.

I understand what you're saying, but our society has clearly made exceptions to your rigid theory, usually on the grounds that such exceptions are in the general interest of the society. One example is free public education for all--it is illegal for schools, which provide a service, to turn away students.

 

Perhaps people do not have a legal "right" to health care, but in my view it is in the general interest of our society to provide it. More importantly, in a prosperous society we have an ethical obligation to take care of each other.

[Basil II]

I understand what you're saying, but our society has clearly made exceptions to your rigid theory, usually on the grounds that such exceptions are in the general interest of the society. One example is free public education for all--it is illegal for schools, which provide a service, to turn away students.

 

Perhaps people do not have a legal "right" to health care, but in my view it is in the general interest of our society to provide it. More importantly, in a prosperous society we have an ethical obligation to take of each other.

 

 

 

 

A right to a "social society" outweighs all the risks of an aienated society.......yes.

 

 

-Robert.

[WilcoFan]

Obviously the word "rights" in America has been completely taken for granted. For me 9/11 was a great lesson. I always thought life and peace were guaranteed. -- Yes, completely American, inward looking and naive. Now I have sat up and looked around the world and realized that the world is hurting. Most of the people in this world have no idea what a guarantee is. Most people in this world have no dreams about the entitlements that us Americans have come to expect.

 

While I still (even after 9/11) think that the American overall positive outlook is what makes America the world's best country, I wonder if the expectations of the the New Deal are even possible anymore. My better judgment and simple mathematics tells me that we're just kidding ourselves... At least for now.

[Dreamin']

I knew you would weigh in on this one

 

Public health care is something that I care about deeply. Our current system certainly isn't perfect, but I worry when I hear politicians talking about moving toward a public-private system (like France, which arguably has the best health care in the world) because of NAFTA. Until I'm sure that the Canada Health Act will be protected, I'm not eager to move away from a single payer system and embrace a hybrid model.

 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed between Canada and the United States is very clear

[ikol]

Perhaps people do not have a legal "right" to health care, but in my view it is in the general interest of our society to provide it. More importantly, in a prosperous society we have an ethical obligation to take care of each other.

 

I agree with you on this. I just disagree on how it should be provided.

[Atticus]

I'm sick right now. Could you guys stop theorizing and throw a guy some theraflu?

[alison the wilca]

Fortunately, it is my right to have.

 

(Thanks to Jack Bauer's grandfather.)

judy- i'm curious...

 

say you want to go to the top specialist in whatever field it is you are in need of, is everyone allowed to go see them? can you pay extra to see someone better? can you get as many opinions as you want? if you want a private hospital room versus a double room, do you pay for that?

 

i'm also totally stupid when it comes to this subject and maybe these have obvious answers but i want to know!

[Dreamin']

Most people in this world have no dreams about the entitlements that us Americans have come to expect.

And yet something as basic as public health care seems completely out of reach to many Americans despite the fact that so many other countries have it. Perhaps the real question is not, "Do you have a right to health care?", but "Why don't you have a right to health care?"

 

judy- i'm curious...

 

say you want to go to the top specialist in whatever field it is you are in need of, is everyone allowed to go see them? can you pay extra to see someone better? can you get as many opinions as you want? if you want a private hospital room versus a double room, do you pay for that?

 

i'm also totally stupid when it comes to this subject and maybe these have obvious answers but i want to know!

Those are good questions, Alison. As far as I know, nothing prevents me from seeing a top specialist (if I get a referral from my family doctor) and if I'm not happy with the care I receive, I suppose I could go back to my GP and ask to see someone else. We can't shop around to the extent that some very wealthy Americans can, but then again, nothing prevents wealthy Canadians from taking a wad of cash south of the border either. There are fees for some uninsured services, but you can usually get most of them covered if you have extended health benefits through your employer. For example, I paid a small fee for a private room when Hannah was born (my extended health benefits covered about $100 and I ended up paying about $20 or so).

 

In BC, everyone is supposed to pay MSP, which is based on income and family size. A single person usually pays about $54 per month (unless the cost is included in their employee benefits pkg).

 

public vs private health care in Canada

 

The big problem we face is wait times for some diagnostic tests and medically necessary procedures, which is very frustrating for both patients and physicians. However, if you're diagnosed with a life-threatening illness that requires immediate attention, you get it right away, no questions asked. My mom had a very rare cancer (in her fallopian tube) and she received excellent care. Her doctor was so compassionate, he transfered her to the cancer treatment centre in Vancouver so she could be closer to me while she was undergoing chemotherapy. Unfortunately, she didn't have many symptoms until it was quite advanced.

[alison the wilca]

thanks, judy.. i was totally clueless

[plasticeyeball]

In BC, everyone is supposed to pay MSP, which is based on income and family size. A single person usually pays about $54 per month (unless the cost is included in their employee benefits pkg).

 

I just can't wrap may head around the huge cost difference and always wordered about quality and coverage since we have nothing to compare to.

 

As an employer and a covered employee, it kills me on both ends. Our cost for a family is $1,320.00 per month. We (the company) pay 2/3's as a benefit and the employee pays 1/3. (which I hear is pretty good these days) As the employee, that's $ 103.00 per week out of your check. (pretax, so it's not included in your taxable income at the end of the year)

 

As the employer, I pay $871.00 per month as an employee benefit. Over 10k per year per family.

 

The money difference is extrordinary. I would be so happy to pay 100% of those MSP's for every employee I have , plus another handful of people, just for kicks!!!

[Guest tandylacker]

Hey hey hey. This year, for the first time in my life, I needed major medical attention. Well, my wife and son did. We had a baby, had almost $5,000 in pre-natal doctor costs. She had to have an 'emergency' c-section which cost around $3,000, plus $2,000 for random things in her hospital stay. Then my son was in intensive care for a couple days and incurred some other random costs that equaled about $6,000. All together, $16,000.

 

So, we have health insurance which cost about $100 a month for the two of us. I am self employed, so it the insurance isn't the best, but we had a $5,000 maternity deductible and a $2,000 out of pocket for the wife, $1,000 for the son. So we payed a grand total of $8,000. Then for our taxes, any medical expenses over 7% of your income are deductible. So the $8,000 turned roughly to $6,000.

 

And that is payable with monthly payments, with no interest, for as long as we want. We can pay as little as $100 a month for 5 years. So what I am saying is, with a little health insurance and some good old fashioned tax deducting, I am just fine with the health care that is provided for each american.

 

I am already getting taxed at 30%, don't need to be paying any more than that. If they gave free health care, through my increased taxes I would probably be 'paying for a son to be born' every year. Everybody should pay for themselves when a medical necessity arises.

 

[plasticeyeball]

those costs are dirt cheap compared to a major medical issue. god forbid anything real bad happens cause that $8k can turn into $80k, which could turn into $800k if you go from baby born - to car accident with spinal surgery & rehabiliitation - to brain cancer & post surgical treatment for a year.

Then let me know how that "Everybody should pay for themselves when a medical necessity arises. " works out for you. (or the family you leave behind with the debt)

[wheelco]

Right is a loaded term. I think all Americans should have access to healthcare, yes.

a good way to put it

 

Certainly there is no inherent right to insurance, but I think there is a basic presumed right to access to healthcare. The question is payment. As a country we provide many social programs to those in need and healthcare has probably become one of the most important needs now. So basically the government needs to shift money from Navy toilet seats to local pediatricians.

[WilcoFan]

I just can't wrap may head around the huge cost difference and always wordered about quality and coverage since we have nothing to compare to.

 

As an employer and a covered employee, it kills me on both ends. Our cost for a family is $1,320.00 per month. We (the company) pay 2/3's as a benefit and the employee pays 1/3. (which I hear is pretty good these days) As the employee, that's $ 103.00 per week out of your check. (pretax, so it's not included in your taxable income at the end of the year)

 

As the employer, I pay $871.00 per month as an employee benefit. Over 10k per year per family.

 

The money difference is extrordinary. I would be so happy to pay 100% of those MSP's for every employee I have , plus another handful of people, just for kicks!!!

 

 

Wrap your head around this: Americans pay for a huge majority of the medical research that has resulted in saving millions of lives and making life better for everyone around the world. The reason Canada, France, India, etc have cheap socialized medicine is because Americans are footing the bill by paying taxes for research grants and paying higher prices for medicine and treatment.

[uncle wilco]

my family has health care as a benefit through my work and for that i'm thankful. however, i'm seeing the costs increase with each year and it's becoming more and more of a concern. i have 4 kids and over the last year and a half, 3 had to have surgery. this came right after our company health care institued yearly deductibles of $250 for each family member. thats $750 i hadn't planned on having to spend in addition to the usual deductions out of my check. and then there's the followup care and specialists who aren't covered due to coverage "loopholes". i didn't used to have these concerns but now it seems that companies are cutting their costs and insurance is now in the business of trying to find ways avoid paying instead of taking care of those who depend on them. frankly, it's pissing me off. all i can do at this point it say we've got a f*cking problem here and something has to be done. i'm certainly open to suggestions up to and including canadian-style health care.

 

but with that comes the concern that it would be like having to settle for dial-up internet vs the high speed version. you would have it, but it would come with a whole list of new problems. either the current system needs streamlining with regard to the consumer and not to corporate profits or outrageous malpractice lawsuits or else this whole thing needs to be scrapped for a new system. nobody is looking out for the "little guy" and with each year, there seems to be more of us in the same boat. it's not gonna get better by itself.

[Tweedling]

Wrap your head around this: Americans pay for a huge majority of the medical research that has resulted in saving millions of lives and making life better for everyone around the world. The reason Canada, France, India, etc have cheap socialized medicine is because Americans are footing the bill by paying taxes for research grants and paying higher prices for medicine and treatment.

 

very nice! We can not look to a small european country for an example on health care. But what we do need is some affordable preventive care. Just as women go to the doctor once a year for a "check-up" there should be a responsibility for all US citizens to do the same for general health. And perhaps the responsibilty of our country to provide some coverage for this. IMO