Comments for 46 Million “Americans” lack Health Insurance - Is It True? »
Posted By WikiMap 6 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsIt appears that the numbers of uninsured in America has been all hype. The 46 million are real but needs to be examined.
Read Full Story at strangestories.info »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 68
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am alway puzzled that what you say, calitennflo.
Reply
It is almost always a short sentence that
makes no grammatical or political sense.
It vaguely references the subject of the post without saying anything
that anyone left or right could agree with.
Are you a real human or some kind of AI?-
100%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I *think* cal is saying that eye and dental (like mental health and substance abuse coverage), are like their own separate categories of insurance. We say that people have insurance but dental and eye coverage is usually separate and when it is part of a plan, the coverage is really stingy. What people who remind us that others come to America to get healthcare forget is that Americans are also going out of the US to get medical care (and it's not always for cheap cosmetic surgery. In short, if we included optical and dental, there'd be WAY more people we could label uninsured.
Reply-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Deep in the jungle,
Reply
Mesodude points to a strangely carved symbol on a tree.
He translates for his fellow explorers:
the natives are saying that the red mushrooms will make you grow bigger,
but the blue mushrooms can only be ordered if you have egg rolls, and also to keep out of their temple or they will make you wish you
had health insurance for your privates .
The exploring party stares, impressed.
-
-
-
-
ExsnorerComment removed: Hard Banned
-
82%
jovial6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to sink this one. Here's the link.
Reply
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_of_...
"Ever since health coverage became a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, we've received periodic questions from readers who wonder whether a large percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens or illegal immigrants. They're not. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants."
The blogger in this story has been infected by Health care industry propaganda.-
75%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
33%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberal courts have said that they have free access to education and health care. California tried to keep them out but were forced to pay for them. This affects a lot of other border states as well. Bleeding heart liberals keep saying we have to pay for these people.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
StevieGee6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not about illegal aliens Klarissa. It's about Americans not having health care. My brother in law just had emergency heart surgery. He doesn't have insurance. How will he pay for it? He won't. You will Klarissa. You'll pay for it either through taxes and with higher insurance premiums. The way the system is now even if the government pays for all of it they will still raise your premiums. Enjoy.
Reply-
-
-
100%
cleare6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we already have rationed health care, endo. the insurance companies give bonuses to the employees who ration the most.
Reply
sheesh, we're already paying out enough to cover everyone, so let's just do it. get the middle men out, stop advertising pharmaceuticals - advertising that amounts to drug pushing. stop performing unnecessary c-sections for profit.
health care for profit is immoral.
-
-
100%
sprzats6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
StevieGee.....My brother went through the exact same thing. He ended up having to file bankruptcy. His monthly prescriptions now run him a few hundred a month. Something has to be done about the health care in the U.S. The system we have right now isn't working for too many people.
Reply
-
-
-
13%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I love it. He was trying to refute the statistics but he really backed them up. I love the 200% of poverty line. That is really stretching it. He brings in kids but then admits the facts about the under 30. He did not really change any statistic in a meaningful way but weasel word around it trying to cast aspersions on it. He changed the figures to leave out the uninsured that qualify for government programs but for some reason never apply. Probably get better care without it. Medicare and Medicaid both ration health care by making payments that do not really pat the health care provider an adequate payment. Therefore they have to find ways to up the money by doing things that are not needed, etc. or else not take them. Medicaid and schools are 60% of the cost to the state governments. It is becoming as black hole for the government and what will happen if everybody is put on this nutty program. Do like Canada and Britain? ration it to the extant that many people die waiting for the necessary care? That is a sad fact about socialized medicine that the liberals never admit to
Reply
EVERY ONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HEALTH CARE BUT THE LIBERALS WILL NEVER ADMIT IT.-
100%
sprzats6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
EVERY ONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HEALTH CARE BUT THE LIBERALS WILL NEVER ADMIT IT.
Reply
Lets say that your statement is correct...Have you ever been screwed over by an insurance company ? I have
Can you afford to pay your insurace premiums without feeling a pretty good dent in your weekly pay ? My premiums rise every year and the co-pays are also going up.
If I need the ER I automatically pay $100.00
Have you ever tried to get health insurance when you have a pre existing condition ?
Most people cannot afford the premiums under those circumstances. So what do they do ?
Have you ever had to pay out three or four hundred a month for heart medication? That's with insurance.
I know too many people that are going without medication because they cannot afford it. I have insurance and I'm still struggling to pay my medical bills. The premiums keep going up but the coverage is getting to be less and less. These insurance companies have the politicians in their pocket. They are making billions every year in profits. If this country goes to socialized medicine, they lose a lot of money. They put out the propoganda against socializing the health care because they know what they stand to lose. No health care system is perfect but I don't see where soializing it would make it any worse. The last time I went to an ER I waited over five hours to be seen. The last time I needed to see a specialist it took two and a half months to be seen.
As far as our taxes subsudizing it...let our government cut out the freaking waste and get the hell out of the middle east. Let the government get serious about the illegals. There are ways of subsidizing it and controlling it.
Why are the ER's so crowded ? People without coverage don't go to doctor's..they can't afford to. They go to the hospital because they can get free care. Believe it or not there are many people in this country that cannot afford health insurance. -
100%
cleare6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i can tell you from my own experience that i spent the better part of my life without access to health insurance, and it devestated my family. couldn't afford it, pre-existing conditions, etceteras.
Reply
half of my time in the workforce i had no health insurance, yet i worked full time.
many doctors won't even see cash patients anymore.
i've known people who died for lack of coverage or inadequete coverage, or from denied claims.
most everyone may have access to emergency care, but that is not "health care". -
-
-
-
17%
Georgia506 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem lies not in finding a link to support your position, but in understanding and reading through your own links, ie, the Kaiser Family Foundation report itself.
Reply
Thanks to private and public safety nets available for the uninsured today, here's the difference in what the uninsured pay on average for uncompensated health care each year. In 2008:
$1,686 is what the average uninsured person paid for uncompensated health care
$4,463 is what nonelderly with insurance paid on average for their health care
See page 16 http://kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdf
The numbers and statistics that comprise the uninsured is not quite as relevant as the stark reality that regardless of how many uninsured there are, they are better off than the insured thanks to existing health care safety nets. Put another way, there is no health care crisis in the United States.
And we all know this thanks to a link provided by Jovial.-
100%
cleare6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
kaiser is also the founding hmo, the nexus that turned a not-for-profit health care system into a for-profit health care system. they and their spawn, egged on by republican administrations, have made a fortune by rationing health care. deny the sick, profit from the well and pay higher bonuses to the claim reviewers with the highest denial rates. i wouldn't take kaiser's word on this issue if it came with a million bucks.
Reply
the "existing health care safety nets" are stressed to the limit. emergency rooms are closing, clinics are closing, health care for poor children is being cut, then restored, then cut again. the system has failed the american people, and we need to change if we expect to have a productive and prosperous society. at the base of all quality of life issues is health.-
0%
Georgia506 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And Obama holds part of the key to the solution in his hands. But remember, he's a lawyer, beholden to the spineless ambulance chasers. That is why he told the AMA point blank, in a forget-me-not from the ABA, that he will not support malpractice liability limits.
Reply
Kudos for being honest, right?
Not quite. Obama gave as his rationale a demonstrable untruth. I won't call him a liar because I do not know if he's aware of this, but he said his opposition to limits was his concern for those who have been wronged by the health care they received.
The reality is that no attorney will take a case on its merits. The case is accepted ONLY if it's fact pattern plays well to the heartstrings of a jury. Those cases that have merit but not a courtroom-friendly fact pattern are left behind. No attorney wants to waste their time on those.
The benefit of liability limits? Average reduction in health across the nation of $2,000 per family. And Obama said no.
We need limits at least in cases that do not involve outright negligence or intentional malpractice. We also need "loser pays" like the UK so that frivolous cases won't be brought.
Another reality check we all need is this: while our system is not perfect, nothing we do is going to make it perfect. Most of the contributors on this forum will be dead in 60 years, and nothing and no one is or can change that. We ought to have enough of a sense of our own mortality that we do not risk the legacy of this nation on a perceived crisis that does not exist.-
100%
cleare6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i have no problem with cracking down on "spineless ambulance chasers", but neither do i want to see monetary limits placed on human suffering. that's a job for judges and juries.
Reply
i don't think your evaluation of trial lawyers perimeters for selecting cases is quite accurate. mostly i think they look for the ones that will net them the most profit and publicity. if the charges don't have "merit", then the judge can say so and dismiss the case.
commentary on the infamous case of the elderly woman winning a lawsuit against mcdonalds over spilt coffee in her lap always neglects to mention that she had third degree burns on her groin and lap that needed extensive grafts.
if we had universal, single payer health care, we could put the spurious trial lawyers out of business. no one would have to sue for medical costs; the only suits would be punitive and a stricter gate-keeping policy would be easier to enforce.-
0%
Georgia506 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, single pay puts trial lawyers out of business. But it does not protect people from bad medical practitioners.
Reply
Giving blanket protection to GOVERNMENT doctors merely means that substandard health care becomes the norm, as it is in the military where soldiers likewise have no recourse.
Recourse, yes. Trial lawyer abuse, no.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, single payer does protect people from bad medical practitioners, and also from ineffective treatments.
Reply
That is, it protects us IF the government is allowed to do what insurers and Medicare/Medicaid already do--judge the effectiveness of practitioners and treatments before accepting them into the program which will pay them.
"On Monday, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the 'Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009,' a new bill prohibiting Medicare or Medicaid from using “comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage.' "
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/18/taking-t...-
Neutral
Georgia506 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To see the fallacy of your position, watch Untold Stories of the ER on TV some time. You will see real life situations where doctors have to improvise on the spot to achieve life-saving results. There's no way any two-bit bureaucrat can anticipate, and thus codify, procedures that have to be resolved on the spot. There's no way to bring all physicians' experience, knowledge, and instant recall up to the same high level.
Reply
My favorite episode: a COUNTY hospital ER had minutes to transport a patient for life-saving surgery that it had neither the facilities nor the surgeon to handle. It took them 30 minutes to find a surgeon. The hospital he practiced in was located only 10 minutes away.
Next road block: COUNTY rules require COUNTY transport. The patient had to have medical transport. The COUNTY dispatcher could not tell the ER when a transport would be available.
Now savor the solution: the ER doctor called 911. By law, a 911 call must receive a response. The 911 dispatcher sent an ambulance, the patient was transported, surgery was performed, and the patient lived DESPITE every GOVERNMENT roadblock thrown in his way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, jovial. Cons do nothing more but create museum terrorists and abortion doctor murderers when they try to demonize and pit groups against one another. That one person in the US (whether a legal citizen or not) lacks health insurance is a crime. We have so much here in this great country and so much to be grateful for. This is inexcusable.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
jovial6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The federal government requires California to provide emergency health care and education to illegal immigrants."
Reply
-Schwarzenegger
This has been going on for years. Prop 187 would have dropped California's obligation to provide illegals services. It was struck down by the federal courts. -
100%
jovial6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't get me wrong, not against clamping down on illegal immigration. If there are millions of illegals in California what do we do with them? Send them to Mexico? Not all of them are from there. There's people of all nationalities here in the U.S. I mean we have illegals here from the U.K. Probably not a lot, but they do exist. How much money would it take to round them all up and deport them? What would be the logistics involved? Where would California find the money to do it? How many law enforcement officers would have to be put on payroll to do the sweep? How many people would be deported by mistake? Where would the detention centers be, how big would they have to be, and how would we feed and clothe them, while they await deportation to their countries of origin? How many would fall through the cracks and not get deported? How many would flee to neighboring states and increase the problems there?
Reply-
0%
rondonit6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I personally volunteer to be hired as a $30K yearly Transporter... I'll provide the Cargo Truck to transport them to the border in a manner equal to their ride in. I figure I can carry 40 at a time, 3 trips a week. We'll provide 20 gallon's of fresh drinking water for the 18 hour trip to the border, I'm sure we can find donors to provide snacks like the ones paying airline passengers get as well as paying the fuel expenses. If one man and a truck can return 5% of the incoming, an Army Transportation Batallion could transport the whole mess in less than 6 months (yes, people will die but, not at nearly the rate of the trip north)
Reply
-
-
70%
doppich6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is this the new talking point from the medical cartel and their congressional puppets? That of the 46 million uninsured there are really only 8 million who matter? Gee. That minor problem should be easy to fix. After all, can't all illness can be cured by a taxpayer-funded bonus and another tax cut for the corporate class?
Reply -
33%
nostalgia6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 46 million uninsured is never explained
Reply
U.S. Census Bureau (CPS 2006) reported that there were 10.2 million uninsured "foreign born" individuals who were "not citizens"
According to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326. In this group are the 20 and 30 year olds who are employed but declined health insurance through their employer (some employers here will actually increase your salary if you decline the health insurance coverage)
That leaves ~20million without insurance
Who are they?
Congressional Budget Office: 45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months
Some of the remaining 20 million qualify for govt programs but have not applied
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.
Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.
So we are going through this massive overhaul for 8.2 million chronically uninsured?
That doesn't make sense to me-
-
Neutral
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"According to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326. In this group are the 20 and 30 year olds who are employed but declined health insurance through their employer (some employers here will actually increase your salary if you decline the health insurance coverage)"
Reply
--Wow. I'm stunned. Stunned to find that $50,000 to $75,000 per year is suddenly a king's ransom--when mere months ago cons were trying to scare Americans into voting for McCain because the Obama campaign proposed raising taxes on income over $250,000.
"So we are going through this massive overhaul for 8.2 million chronically uninsured?
That doesn't make sense to me."
--What a surprise... So where do the *underinsured* fit into your equation? Not everyone who "has insurance" has *adequate* insurance. Millions do not.
-
-
90%
jaern6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry Wiki, I have to drop this submission. These statistics are all right out of the mouth of the Insurance Industry who are terrified that we will adopt National Health Care and that will leave them w/o their huge quarterly profits.
Reply-
0%
Georgia506 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fine. Along with the deindustrialization of America that has been going on since the 70s, let's add to the job loss those 20 million plus who work in the health insurance industry.
Reply
After all, wouldn't it be better to have 20 million government workers incentivized to bankrupt the nation rather than make their own companies profitable?-
-
Neutral
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Fine. Along with the deindustrialization of America that has been going on since the 70s, let's add to the job loss those 20 million plus who work in the health insurance industry."
Reply
--I think you mean 20 million *bureacrats*. At least that's what right wingers would call 20 million "customer service" reps if they were working for the government. And why aren't cons worried about the millions of additional people that could be put out of work when/if the American auto industry fails?
"After all, wouldn't it be better to have 20 million government workers incentivized to bankrupt the nation rather than make their own companies profitable?"
--I just don't think cons should be preaching and dispensing their economic "wisdom" so enthusiastically.
-
-
-
14%
grassyno6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't worry, it WILL be 42 million Americans by the time Obama gives all the illegals Amnesty and free (tax payer paid) health care. When Reagan gave them a "one time only" Amnesty, we only had 3 million and Amnesty was supposed to solve the problem. It then jumped to nearly 18 million... and this guy wants to toss in free health care as an added incentive to bring MORE of them in. Bush was bad enough raising the debt to $3 trillion in 8 years. Obama raised it another $6 trillion in just 8 WEEKS... and now he wants to add the most expensive program of all, the one that increases in cost every year. Taxpayer paid health care. He talks great, but his policies defy common sense.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When Reagan gave them a "one time only" Amnesty, we only had 3 million and Amnesty was supposed to solve the problem. "
Reply
--So just as destroying a budget surplus earned G.W Bush a second term in office, Reagan's photo is in the living room of every right winger in America because he "only" allowed 3 million to stay and because it was a "one time only" deal? I love how cons think they should be allowed to decide what's "too much" deficit spending, or when we're taxing the wealthy "too much" or when the minimum wage is "high enough". Amazing. ;-P
-
-
100%
cleare6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's right, blame it all on illegal immigration. (the brown ones, of course, not the white ones) it's all their fault the sky is falling.
Reply
bs!!!
our health care system sucks because health care is a for profit industry in the us. and it cares about profit, not health.
i don't understand anyone who opposes a national single payer plan. unless you are very wealthy and very lucky, everyone knows someone who has suffered needlessly because of lack of access to timely and appropriate health care.
i want doctors who want to heal, not ones who are motivated by greed. i want pharmaceutical companies more focused on researching drugs for diseases that aren't "trendy", not pushing viagra. i want nurses who don't burn out from exhaustion after a few years. i want medical students to be able to afford their education.
i want us all to value each other enough to care that we all stay healthy and productive.-
100%
sprzats6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Blaming this mess on the illegals is a bunch of crap. I agree with you cleare that health care is for profit. Those that make out on it are the politicians, insurance companies,nursing homes, ($6000.00 a month for a bed) and the pharmaceutical companies. I'm sure that I have left some out but this is for starters.
Reply
The losers are those of us that are paying well more than we can afford and have to deal with these ruthless insurers. I live in a state where having health insurance is a law, To qualify for the state health insurance a person's income has to be so low that most workers don't qualify.
I have to agree that anyone who opposes a national plan is wealthy enough to afford their own medical expenses or are listening to all of the propoganda thrown out by the insuance companies, which end out being the losers (for a change) if we do get national health care.
-
-
100%
starshutch6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am unemployed and have pre-existing conditions. I had COBRA but it was half of what I was getting in unemployment benefits.
Reply
I couldn't go without coverage, so thankfully the state that I live in has a program in place for people like me and will waive the pre-existing coverage rule. My insurance is still one fourth of my unemployment, not to mention the co-pays.
I cannot get free or almost-free health coverage through the state because I would have to go without coverage for 4 months - which isn't an option. Besides, Minnesota is broke and there are very few jobs here. So it's very easy to lose your coverage, or have to go without if you do not have the money to pay the premiums. When I was in my 20's and healthier, I was without insurance because my employer didn't offer insurance. I was injured in a fall and had to pay the hospital back in installments.
I also have a lot of problems with the insurance companies, who want to dictate what drugs I can take, ect. when the doctor does know best! -
100%
rondonit6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Insurance Racket (they gamble that you can't spend more than they charge you for coverage)is totally motivated by the expansive profits they receive by reselling all Medical Treatment and care to you. A single National, Not for Profit plan would not only cover everybodies basic healthcare but, it would also free the Insurance Companies to really write "Insurance". They tricked you into mandating auto coverage (for their profit)now they're trying to trick you into believing that they are the best handler of your health. Look at your Health Policy, of all the Medical Expenses you've incurred, how much was covered and paid by the Insurance Company to the Doctor of your choice? How often were you told you couldn't get a procedure because it was "Out of Network" or otherwise not covered? YOU TOO ARE UNINSURED, you just don't get counted because they're collecting premiums from you.
Reply -
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
0%
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many of the uninsured aren't needy. They have chosen not to get insurance and spend their money on other priorities.
Reply
Check out these videos
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/560.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk-
100%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some people just save up for a rainy day rather than pay premiums to an insurance company.
Reply
Paying the premiums is a gamble; you don't know if they're going to pay for the procedures you need. Putting that money in a savings account at least earns you some interest. ;-)-
100%
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was put on Medicare three months ago and now pay $550 per month for that and supplemental coverage. For the prior three years, I didn't pay the $600-700 COBRA per month premium for continuation of my last job's insurance. Under that plan, I had a $500 deductible and co-pay of 20%, and the hassle of arguing with the insurance company about the bills. So, I was "uninsured" by government determination.
Reply
I had kept a reserve amount of cash put aside "for a rainy day" and the last year of my work, stopped contributing to my 401K and added that money to the reserve.
Last year, I needed a hernia operation that cost me $3,500. With two checks and a credit card, about ten minutes of time total, I was good to go. No paperwork, no hassles. And compared to the approximately $21,000 I would have paid in premiums during three years, my out-of-pocket cost was a good bargain, even with another $1,000 for checkups and dental work for three years.-
-
100%
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Catastrophic health care insurance used to be easier to get. Now, it's very pricey. In the rare event I needed something as expensive as a liver transplant, my home would be my final reserve. I have no right to expect others to pay for my misfortune and my failing to properly care for my health.
Reply
There are much less expensive alternatives. Bangkok, Singapore, Mumbai, even Guadalajara offer excellent medical care for a fraction of the cost (20-40% of what it costs in the U.S.). In Bangkok, many of the doctors at the leading hospitals are U.S. Board certified and have practiced in the U.S.
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Many of the uninsured aren't needy. They have chosen not to get insurance and spend their money on other priorities."
Reply
--Cons don't need gas guzzling cars but they buy them anyway and then bitch that we need to destroy the planet looking for more oil so they can continue driving around in their tanks.
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It appears that the numbers of uninsured in America has been all hype. The 46 million are real but needs to be examined.
Reply
I loved the idiot contradiction of that sentence enough to
wade through the familiar swamp of stats in the article.
Those frauds are old friends from years back.
It tells us we don't know how many of the uninsured are
illegal americans, - then removes their millions.
It claims falsely that we count people who currently have no insurance ,
points out that most people without jobs find one within a year,
- and removes more millions.
It tells us that many of the uninsured are young and healthy
and do not need health insurance, - and removes those.
Unimaginately, it keeps 8 million total losers.
By pointing out that these people can always go to the emergency room
it could have removed them too.
Enough.
The movie 'Sicko', was not about those who do not have health insurance;
it was about those who do
- but find that it is worthless.
After job loss, the number one reason for foreclosure is medical expenses.
Your house, - or your life.
We are economicly and spiritualy a poorer nation for the
idiocy of our health dont-care system.
Who defends it?
Those with cheney-care, exempt from the horror.
And anonymous lobbyists like the article's author.
And finaly those who feel their lives would be poorer,
less interesting if everyone had decent health care:
Sadists . -
Neutral
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Health care, like any other human value, isn't free. Someone has to provide it. How?
Reply
One can provide for one's own health care, working for it and saving. Then, your care is strictly between you and your doctor.
One can enslave others to pay for it. Not a good idea, especially when the people you enslave (doctors and other healthcare workers) have your life in their hands.
One can force people to pay for it, either outrightly (as Romney did in Massachusetts by making people buy insurance), taxing people through their income and purchases, or being sneaky and hiding the costs in hidden taxes so everything bought costs more.
The problem with the government intervention of the past is that while the productive workers are taxed to pay for health care, third parties decide if and what care they get, with "service fees" for their interference. The government single-payer plan substitutes itself for those third parties. And a government plan usually is a "one size fits all." In effect, you get to pay for health care but bureaucrats get to decide who is worthy of receiving it.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The problem with the government intervention of the past is that...third parties decide if and what care they get, with "service fees" for their interference."
Reply
This is also true for private insurance plans. Middlemen (bureaucrats) working for insurance companies decide if and what care you get, and you pay them for the service. They're not medical professionals, and they get bonuses based on how much they save the insurance company by not paying to your medical providers.
In a government single-payer plan, at least the people deciding on what care you may receive have a goal other than money on which to evaluate your treatment options.-
100%
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Government bureaucrats have the same budgetary constraints that others face. Look at the Canadian and English government health care system. It's now all about saving the system by rationing and denying care for expensive drugs and treatments. "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money." They've had socialized medicine for decades and it's breaking down.
Reply
I included private insurance plans in my third-party comment. Anyone paying for someone else needs to control the expenses of that someone. Liberty and personal responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Once you relinquish responsibility to the government, you simultaneously lose your Liberty.
If your health is the government's responsibility, it will enforce rules upon you that its experts think will accomplish that, including controlling your diet, exercise, recreational activities, and so on.
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"One can enslave others to pay for it. Not a good idea, especially when the people you enslave (doctors and other healthcare workers) have your life in their hands."
Reply
--The thing is, in my experience, it's usually those whose ancestors were slave owners (rather than slaves) who are most likely to use words like "enslave" when it involves taking care of their fellow man's health and well-being. Oddly, we don't hear such descriptors used when we're spending trillions on wars we choose to instigate. Right wingers are quick to remind us that providing for the nation's defense is "in the Constitution" but they sidestep what the Constitution says about providing for the national defense in ways that are reckless, wasteful, deceitful and criminal. I didn't want to pay for wars that the same people who don't care what happens to their fellow man insisted that we needed to fight to "keep us safe" Exactly...How backwards is that thinking--keep us safe from terrorists but say to hell with you when we want health care.
"The problem with the government intervention of the past is that while the productive workers are taxed to pay for health care, third parties decide if and what care they get, with "service fees" for their interference."
--The problem with broad statements about "the government" is that we've seen that the private sector can royally screw things up, too. We'll hear scary stories about "rationing" if the government is involved--but it's the rare person who hasn't been on the losing end of a dispute involving a health insurance claim. So we know rationing occurs in the private sector. Maybe we should avoid talking points that suggest that the private sector will be the holy grail of healthcare. We know otherwise. ;-0-
100%
fjgalt6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In summary then, you impugned my ancestors by insinuating they were slave owners and therefore I can't criticize the government when it violates the rights of its citizens and acts unconstitutionally, as if the descendants of ancestral slave owners have no rights to criticize. (Classifying people by their ancestors is a form of racism and is collectivist "tribal" thinking.)
Reply
You then attack unspecified right-wingers in reply to my message as if implying that I am right-winger, and that is a sufficient argument.
Anyone can screw up, as you say. When a private company screws up, it and those associated with it, can suffer. When a government screws up, everyone suffers. And a government has the power to use lethal force. I am not forced to buy insurance in a free market and I can shop around for better deals, if any. Can I tell the government I won't obey its laws?
You are still stereotyping and setting up straw men with those of a different opinion. You are not seriously discussing.
P.S. My ancestors came to America in the late 1800s, after slavery was abolished in the U.S. Philosophically, I am an Objectivist. I have great disdain for both so-called liberals and conservatives. And I opposed the Patriot Act and our foreign wars.
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.