[Huntster]

Quote:
I'm satisfied, thanks.

Then don't worry.

I'm not worried about my current health care.

I'm worried about my future health care.

Remember what he said, (to paraphrase) "If you already have healthcare, we won't change a thing. If you don't, we will give you an option that will simply be insurance. We will not change the care being given."

I don't believe him.

More, I'm already forced into government health care upon my 65th birthday when Medicare becomes my primary "option" (which wasn't an "option" for me at all, and which shows why I don't believe him/them when they say, "if you already have healthcare, we won't change a thing.")

And, regardless of my own health care options, I'll be among those paying for the new stuff.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I don't believe him.

Tough shit. That's not an argument.

More, I'm already forced into government health care upon my 65th birthday when Medicare becomes my primary "option" (which wasn't an "option" for me at all, and which shows why I don't believe him/them when they say, "if you already have healthcare, we won't change a thing.")

Don't pay your Medicare taxes then.

[Huntster]

Quote:
I don't believe him.

Tough shit. That's not an argument.

1) Yes, it's tough shit

2) Correct, it isn't an argument. It's a statement of fact.

Quote:
More, I'm already forced into government health care upon my 65th birthday when Medicare becomes my primary "option" (which wasn't an "option" for me at all, and which shows why I don't believe him/them when they say, "if you already have healthcare, we won't change a thing.")

Don't pay your Medicare taxes then.

Then I go to jail, get all my assets seized, or both.

Along with my "tough shit", that is what I refer to when I point out that it is not I imposing anything on anybody else. It's the Left, liberals, and "want-it-for-free" folks imposing their desires on me and people like me.

Tough shit for me?

Yeah.

For now.......................

[The Clockwork Rat]

In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if:

* They are 65 years or older and U.S. citizens or have been permanent legal residents for 5 continuous years, and they or their spouse has paid Medicare taxes for at least 10 years.

or

* They are under 65, disabled, and have been receiving either Social Security benefits or the Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for at least 24 months from date of entitlement (first disability payment).

Is this incorrect?

[Huntster]

Wikipedia wrote:
In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if:

* They are 65 years or older and U.S. citizens or have been permanent legal residents for 5 continuous years, and they or their spouse has paid Medicare taxes for at least 10 years.

or

* They are under 65, disabled, and have been receiving either Social Security benefits or the Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for at least 24 months from date of entitlement (first disability payment).

Is this incorrect?

It appears correct.

However, what I was pointing out to you was this fact:

At retirement, however, when your employee is no longer actively at work, Medicare becomes primary. The group policy, whether continued through COBRA or under ORS 243.303, will become secondary even if the retiree and/or spouse have not signed up for Part B.
Medicare only allows retirees to enroll in Part B when initially eligible or during open enrollment each year. When enrolling during open enrollment coverage becomes effective July 1.
For each year a Medicare eligible person does not enroll in Part B, the Medicare premium is surcharged by 10% once enrollment takes place. The only exception is if the retiree and/or spouse have been covered under a group plan while the retiree has remained actively in employment.

This is identical to what some UHC versions are calling for. It takes over, and if you try to avoid them, you pay a penalty. They want control.

Why?

So, like in Medicare, they can publish "reasonable cost" schedules and dictate whether or not a recipient will get a treatment or not.

[The Clockwork Rat]

@ Huntster
Interesting. I can see why you don't like it now.

In this country it's a non-issue because everyone pays National Insurance for their whole working life.

Is Medicare a worse option than a private option? If so, in what way? That is, why do you trust a for-profit company more than your own government to provide for you?

[Huntster]

Is Medicare a worse option than a private option? If so, in what way?

Physicians don't want to deal with Medicare. Why? Because Medicare dictates what it will pay, and the physician cannot charge me any more. Their payment is set.

It isn't quite as bad as Workman's Compensation. That's when an employee claims injury on the job. It's an "insurance" policy that all employers pay for as part of their "employment taxes".

As you might imagine, lots of people will try to claim injury in order to continue getting paid for sitting their sorry asses at home (or even working elsewhere), so the system has a lot of investigation, denial, bureaucratic documentation, etc.

Some doctors (many, in fact) will absolutely refuse to see patients under Workman's Comp.

At any rate, that is why many opponents of UHC don't believe that their private coverage will "not change". Obviously, just like with all the other government health care programs in this country (Medicare, Veterans Health Administration, Public Health Administration, Workman's Compensation Programs, etc) we've been there/done that. It takes control, and it fucks everything up.

That is, why do you trust a for-profit company more than your own government to provide for you?

Because it pays, doctors know it, and they thus give me good service.

Government usurps control from all, both I and the doctors/hospitals know it, and we're afraid.

[The Clockwork Rat]

So you're already fucked. If you had to start again then the doctors wouldn't be getting so much in the first place and so would treat people more equally.

[DanDaMan]

In this country it's a non-issue because everyone pays National Insurance for their whole working life.

Most of America does not need that because we are mature and responsible enough to take care of ourselves.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Most of America does not need that because we are mature and responsible enough to take care of ourselves.

I think one of your smug little should go here. Maybe you're healthy because your head is constantly stuck so far up your arse that you have a closed cycle digestive system.

[DanDaMan]

Most of America does not need that because we are mature and responsible enough to take care of ourselves.

I think one of your smug little should go here. Maybe you're healthy because your head is constantly stuck so far up your arse that you have a closed cycle digestive system.

I'm not the one needing a "nanny".

[RonPaulalways]

In this country it's a non-issue because everyone pays National Insurance for their whole working life.

And the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in Europe. It's the only the European country that has a fully government run public health care system: the doctors are government employees.

I know this is tangential, just wanted to mention it.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Mhmm. It also has the most right-wing government in Western Europe. It also has the closest culture to the US. Point being?

[DanDaMan]

Mhmm. It also has the most right-wing government in Western Europe. It also has the closest culture to the US.

That's like saying it's half pregnant!
You have socialized medicine. You are the LEFT.

[hannigaholic]

I have been the recipient of both government health care as well as private health care. I can conduct my own comparison with my own experience, thanks.

Personal anecdotes are no argument. You need to take in the bigger picture, which is only really accessible with the relevant statistics.

And nobody is denying that the best care tends to be private.

I strongly suspect there are people doing just that.

Actually you're probably right. I guess I really mean nobody reasonable is denying it. Obviously the best care is private care, and I've taken advantage of it myself in the past. The problem is that the best care is also the most expensive care. The question is whether the system as a whole would be better if it were private, tax-funded, or a mixture of both. The evidence seems to suggest that there's really not a lot of difference between the health outcomes, but a lot of difference in the price. I'd certainly rather have a tax-funded health system if it was, say, 99% as effective but cost significantly less - as does seem to be suggested by the health outcomes and costs data that are available - especially if it left room for people to purchase extra private insurance as well, as is the case with most (if not all) countries with universal coverage.

That's not to say I think the UK system is the best. I happen to believe that a better tax-funded system would be one where hospitals are private enterprises, but the government refunds a percentage of all costs - say 80%. That way it still pays to shop around, you still get competition in terms of price and service, but the poor get guaranteed affordable healthcare, and bureaucratic central government control is minimised. People could still take out insurance if they don't want to cover the more expensive treatments.

Of course, this isn't what Obama is proposing, so it's all rather academic really. I just wanted to demonstrate that there are those of us who favour tax-funding of healthcare but who aren't keen on bureaucratic paternalism. I actually fully agree with what you seem to be saying, in that choice is a very good thing for consumers; I just don't see any convincing argument that privatising the cost of healthcare produces better results and cheaper prices. It's privatising control that I think will produce the required results, and that's why I think the NHS is falling ever further behind the rest of Europe.

2) I mentioned no "evil" or "antichrist", have I? Wasn't it you utilizing that extreme speech?

3) Since #2 above is true, why should any of us lend the rest of your words any creedence?

Hence my use of the term 'imply'.

Honestly you make one little exaggeration to demonstrate a point and the response comes back not about that point but about the semantics. It's the argumentative equivalent of 'I'm not touching you'.

[Huntster]

I actually fully agree with what you seem to be saying, in that choice is a very good thing for consumers; I just don't see any convincing argument that privatising the cost of healthcare produces better results and cheaper prices. It's privatising control that I think will produce the required results, and that's why I think the NHS is falling ever further behind the rest of Europe.

I watched and heard Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) this morning (on the news network that some on this forum claim isn't a news network) with a proposal that is, in my opinion, ideal. She is talking about an array of insurance plans organized and subsidized by the government that individuals choose from, whichever fits their needs best. The large pools spread the risk widely, which reduces costs to the carrier.

In essence, it's the same system that she as a senator and I as a federal employee/retiree enjoy, and it works exceedingly well. In the federal model, the government pays 67% and the employee pays 33%. In a wider model, the citizen would pay in accordance with their income.

Quote:
2) I mentioned no "evil" or "antichrist", have I? Wasn't it you utilizing that extreme speech?

3) Since #2 above is true, why should any of us lend the rest of your words any creedence?

Hence my use of the term 'imply'.

I don't "imply". I tend to be pretty blunt.

Honestly you make one little exaggeration to demonstrate a point and the response comes back not about that point but about the semantics. It's the argumentative equivalent of 'I'm not touching you'.

I'm not touching word games.

[hannigaholic]

In essence, it's the same system that she as a senator and I as a federal employee/retiree enjoy, and it works exceedingly well. In the federal model, the government pays 67% and the employee pays 33%. In a wider model, the citizen would pay in accordance with their income.

Sounds good. Far simpler than bureaucratic micromanagement, and still leaves the market open to competition.

One thing I just read, getting through my stack of unread newspapers, is that healthcare and medical malpractice insurers are exempt from anti-competition laws at the moment. Is that right? If so then it's no wonder the cost is currently so high.

[Huntster]

One thing I just read, getting through my stack of unread newspapers, is that healthcare and medical malpractice insurers are exempt from anti-competition laws at the moment. Is that right? If so then it's no wonder the cost is currently so high.

I'm not positive about that particular claim, but I am aware of similar regulatory situations on the state level that are part of the problem.

Here in Alaska (and I'm sure in most states) you cannot just build and operate a hospital. There is a complex permitting process that the state controls. If current health care operators utilize their power to block competition (and we know they will/do), competition is stifled.

Ditto insurance corporations. Alaska has an insurance (of all kinds; auto, home, business, risk, health, etc) regulatory board/commission.

Thus, in essence, much of the cost/availability problems we already have are at least partially of government origin.

It is foolish to expect government to solve problems. Government is the problem.

[Zerogouki]

I never said the US had a free market in healthcare. I said it is one of the most highly privatised helathcare markets in the world. The US has a freer healthcare market than almost every other developed nation. It's healthcare is among the most free. These are relative statements, not an absolute.

If the free market is so efficient, then presumably the freer the market, the better the health outcomes and the lower the cost, but the cost in the heavily-privatised US is far beyond that of the UHC-toting developed nations, and the health outcomes are broadly equal overall. This at the very least challenges the notion that what the US needs is a freer market in healthcare.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. It's like saying "Taco Bell is crap, therefore all Mexican food is crap", or "Lindsay Lohan is probably a virgin because she's not Paris Hilton".

The only way to know what system works best is to give the states more room to experiment.

why do you trust a for-profit company more than your own government to provide for you?

Because the company only gets paid if I survive. They have a reason to care whether I live or die.

[hannigaholic]

Sorry, but that's not how it works. It's like saying "Taco Bell is crap, therefore all Mexican food is crap", or "Lindsay Lohan is probably a virgin because she's not Paris Hilton".

The only way to know what system works best is to give the states more room to experiment.

It's actually more like you claiming food that is 100% Mexican is cheaper and better than food that is 100% American, which means Taco Bell (say 50% Mexican, 50% American) should be cheaper and better than McDonalds (100% American), but in fact it's more expensive and not any better overall.

But yeah, let the states decide. I'm all for that. Regardless of what you, I, or anybody else thinks is best, the people should be allowed to decide for themselves what system their home region uses.