Unconstitutionalcare

I've heard welfare moms have mink coats and drive Cadillacs.

As to the point, the waiting times in Canada are for several reasons and one is that it's difficult for physicians to move to a different province and set up shop. Another is the shortage of doctors. The medical schools are full, so it's not a case of people not wanting to be doctors.

The German system has its problems, but doesn't have the waiting-list issue that exists in Canada. The big difference in Europe is the culture that everyone should have healthcare instead of here where it's TS if you don't have enough money.

 

Dick, I suppose the best way to look at what you're saying is to say that a good driver at 22 may stay a good driver his/her whole life. They'll never get a speeding ticket or get in an accident.

But, the assumption is that a health 22-year-old will eventually get old and require expensive medical care, so by only jumping into the system later in life, they've gamed it. They didn't pay in all along, but want to get the benefits when they need them.

There's some sense & some truth to this.

But, the answer is to gauge the healthy 22-year-old.

Better to have incentives. Guarantees that rates would only go up so much -- based on an avoidance of poor choices such as smoking, weight gain, etc.

An insurance company can make a legitimate long term assessment of a 22-year-old. They can build in increases into a long term insurance plan.

But, the employer base system we currently have means individuals don't shop for insurance. They aren't assessed on an individual basis, and they don't keep their insurance plan as they move from job to job.

The employer base plan is a terrible way to ensure people. The proposed fixes are worse.

 

Too often, UnitedHealth's claim-handling procedures and standards leave much to be desired.

 

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

 

I like Somalia's health insurance system.

 

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

 

Can't believe a good conservative like you would advocate anything that would take away from a person's freedom of choice.

I don't know about you, but the last thing on Earth I want is some fucking insurance company dictating my personal choices based on their "incentives". And "long-term assessment" for insurance company usually equals "find as much as shit as we can to screw over the customer."

And I say that as a non-smoking, very light drinker who is of a normal weight who understands your overall point, but who thinks your solution would go over like a lead balloon.

 

It's all in the name of "freedom".

Fact that she's black has absolutely nothing to do with it . . . : :-\

 

I'm all for personal choices.

I hate the idea of a soda tax or a fast food tax. I rarely drink soda or eat at McDonald's, but on the rare occasion I do, I don't want to pay a tax for the privilege.

But, if you want to make certain choices, then you should be willing to deal with the consequences.

And, of course my idea would go over like a lead balloon. Making people deal with the consequences of their actions will never be popular -- especially when they don't currently have to live with them.

 

That's all well and good, but I see you ignored my friend here ...



The costs themselves have to be addressed too, as in, health providers, doctors, etc., need to stop gouging the ever-living fuck out of everyone for the most basic services.

I had a consult with my heart doctor a few months ago. I literally talked to him for 30 seconds. The pre-insured bill was something like $320. That's total insanity.

There are hospitals that charge $50 for patients to get an extra blanket.

Horseshit gouging and profiteering drives up costs too. I don't hear much of anything that is addressing that aspect of health costs.

 

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

 

But, a lot of that is making up for other areas where they got screwed. Where they didn't get reimbursed at the proper rate.

So, like a guy padding his expense report with an extra cab ride to make up for not getting reimbursed for a meal, you pay more for certain items.