I don't actually disagree with you, Kerry. The insurance industry needs to be brought into line. I am one of those that doesn't carry insurance because of the costs.

I KNOW what medical bills can do. I had a kidney stone that I couldn't just " pass naturally " a few years ago. I am still trying to catch up.

BUT, it didn't drive me into bankruptcy.

The thing that some people don't take into consideration is that, as long as you are paying them SOMETHING, even if it's ten bucks a month, the hospitals won't ( I do believe by law CANNOT ) send the bills into a collection agency.

But...I am still accurate in my numbers and in the thought that if 1 ( or more ) out of every 3 dollars we earn wasn't taken from us, we might be better able to afford insurance and other things that we NEED to live.

So, if you didn't have to pay any taxes at all, you'd have health insurance?

I'm not picking on you, but I want you to be aware of some figures. In 2004, the local hospitals pretty much gave up on my case and sent me to John Hopkins. The local hospital is one of those that has to take everyone and eats the bills for people who can't pay.

When I needed MRAs (they're like MRIs, only of your arteries lit up with radiotracers) done every couple of months to make sure a dangerous arterial condition in my brain was stabilized, I had the first set done at the local hospital. The series cost $3300. The kicker was, they weren't done correctly and my neurosurgeon at Hopkins was visibly angry that they wasted his time and mine (not counting my considerable copay, too!). He had me come to Baltimore everytime thereafter to have them done.

Now, Hopkins is one of those places that you have to go to at least an hour early for your appointment because you have to wait in line at reception with a check or major credit card for any co-pay. No co-pay, no service-- none of that $10 per month into perpetuity payment scheduling.

Care to guess what the same MRA series cost at Hopkins? I know this to be a fact because I had to have the $75 copay in hand to get them done.

Would you believe $750?

One other figure you're not taking into account that is that if you work for yourself, you're paying 15.3% Social Security on the first $100,000 you make. But, you're likely to get all that back and more in benefits if you're lucky enough to live into your 90s. Sooner, if you're unlucky enough to be disabled.

Just grist for the mill...

-Kerry O.

Just out of curiosity (not sure if this works or not but would like some input on the pro's and con's) What is wrong with letting each state decide the HC issue for their own state? Let the people in each state vote on it

Not saying that at all. All I am saying is that, if we weren't having one third of our income removed by taxes, people might be able to afford to pay for coverage.

I will add the caveat that this would be even more likely if costs for coverage were brought under control.

I will also say that, if I were able to keep more of my money, then I probably would be a whole lot more likely to have coverage because it would be less likely to take money away from one of the other basic needs such as shelter or food.



No worries. I'm not taking it personally. I enjoy a healthy discussion more than some around here...lol

In 2004, the local hospitals pretty much gave up on my case and sent me to John Hopkins. The local hospital is one of those that has to take everyone and eats the bills for people who can't pay.

When I needed MRAs (they're like MRIs, only of your arteries lit up with radiotracers) done every couple of months to make sure a dangerous arterial condition in my brain was stabilized, I had the first set done at the local hospital. The series cost $3300. The kicker was, they weren't done correctly and my neurosurgeon at Hopkins was visibly angry that they wasted his time and mine (not counting my considerable copay, too!). He had me come to Baltimore everytime thereafter to have them done.

Now, Hopkins is one of those places that you have to go to at least an hour early for your appointment because you have to wait in line at reception with a check or major credit card for any co-pay. No co-pay, no service-- none of that $10 per month into perpetuity payment scheduling.

Care to guess what the same MRA series cost at Hopkins? I know this to be a fact because I had to have the $75 copay in hand to get them done.

Would you believe $750?

One other figure you're not taking into account that is that if you work for yourself, you're paying 15.3% Social Security on the first $100,000 you make. But, you're likely to get all that back and more in benefits if you're lucky enough to live into your 90s. Sooner, if you're unlucky enough to be disabled.

Just grist for the mill...

-Kerry O.

That begs the question...

Why were the costs so much higher at the local hospital?

It's because of a combination of people not paying their bills at all and the hospitals having to recoup the expenses to stay afloat.

Those factors, along with things like Medicare not paying their bills in a timely manner, or paying only a small percentage of the actual costs and telling the hospitals and doctors " This is what we're willing to give you. Take it or leave it. " That also adds to the costs.

There are a lot of ways to lower costs. None of which the government is bothering to look at.

if any state decided to offer universal coverage and single payer
tax supported healthcare then everybody who has been denied
coverage would likely move there!



this is actually the strategy of the current healthcare industry
in the U.S. - get all those who are denied coverage to move to
Canada, the UK or France.

I didn't think about people moving to the state with the healthcare they liked, so you might have a point there

Let's face the cold hard truth-- it doesn't matter if you pay $0 in taxes AND control costs, you're NEVER going to get world-class health care when most of the people defect from the system by not carrying insurance, thinking they can get major operations for the $10 a month some people are willing to pay to avoid collection agencies if they roll the dice and lose.

Often, those who stomp their feet the loudest over these issues are the ones who are, in essence, privitizing the savings while socializing the losses by not carrying insurance and using the excuse that they're being cheated by the government and some invisible market forces created by liberals that make health care dishonestly expensive. The truth is, you can't own a new Porsche for $10/ mo either.

And then it's people like myself who do carry insurance by doing without luxuries who end up paying the bill for those who refuse to on what are often somewhat dubious grounds.

How's that old saying go?



-Kerry O.

Yes the USA sucks in HC....nice graph Slow. We barely beat out the Czech Republic in life expectancy. GO USA!!!

Wow how many HC threads are we going to make?

"A Roadmap for America’s Future"
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/

Well, if you dislike the USA's health care so much, if I were you, I would take advantage of the country whose health care you think is so great, and move there..........there, problem solved. Next?

Because that would be the right thing, the civil thing to do. Sorry, got a little sarcastical.........

No thanks, I'll stay and keep voting for people who will make it better...I guess some in the US think 3rd rate HC for it's citizens is okay and are also uncaring for the 46K that die EVERY year from lack of HC...what's your plan again...oh Just Say No...I get it. Let them die huh? Let them suffer..who cares as long as it's a political advantage...pathetic, inhumane, blind.

~~~

I run an anti-teen drinking org in hopes of giving children a chance to grow up drug free...I believe that PREVENTION is a key to reducing HC costs. We spend 60 billon a year from the effects of drunk kids...and my biggest opposition? In this state it's the GOP who resist taking on the alcohol industry for pushing their unmarked/freely marketed DRUG onto our children.

To be fair a shout out to the DINO Gov we have here that I met with on this issue...he's a lame as it gets. Pfft...

NEXT!

Ok over 2,420,000 people die in the US every year.

2,420,000
- 46,000
_________
2,374,000

So what should we do about the 2,374,000 who have insurance and die each year?

Does this figure in deaths by accidents or natural causes?

What an absurd attempt at a point.

“He had delusions of adequacy.” — Walter Kerr

I love MY country. I simply do not accept that we cannot get the
best care in the world at a lower cost than any other major country.
However, if we do not fix our system we will likely lose many very
wealthy and intelligent citizens who can easily move to other
countries with better health care systems.

There is no reason why our healthcare system right here in the U.S.
should cost 2 or 3x as much as anywhere else and deliver care which
is worse than France or S. Korea or New Zealand.

Our system should provide better care than France and at a cost
which is lower per capita than S. Korea in my opinion. Why shouldn't
we have the best and most efficient health care system in the
world rather than the costliest mediocre system in the world?

LOL why don't you try and use your brain for something other than putting people down?

How can you prove that those 46,000 didn't have access to healt care?
How do you know some didn't want it?
How many were to lazy to look into getting it?
I'm betting you can't answer those questions so I'll stop there.

Nothing surprises me from the truthiness hitsquad here, no references, no links to anything credible to support even the basics...soooo just SAY ANYTHING.

Study: 45,000 Uninsured Die a Year
While Debate Continues Over Cost of Insuring Everyone, Harvard Study Links Deaths to Lack of Coverage

"We found that 45,000 Americans are dying annually, due to lack of health insurance," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

Woolhandler was part of a team that tracked more than 9,000 people for up to 13 years, comparing the health of those with insurance to those without. After factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking and obesity, researchers found that the uninsured had about a 40 percent higher risk of death, linking 45,000 American deaths a year to lack of insurance. In 1993 it was 25 percent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

This is a Harvard study so it's obviously "elitist" findings..LOLOLOLOL.