Man Robs Bank of $1 To Get Health Care In Jail

f1vlad writes "A 59-year-old man has been jailed in Gastonia, N.C., on charges of larceny after allegedly robbing an RBC Bank for $1 so he could get health care in prison. Richard James Verone handed a female teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report."

Comments

Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

If you can't get a job, that's about the quickest, easiest way to get healthcare in the U.S. The healthcare isn't great in jails and prisons, but it beats the hell out of nothing.

For those of you fortunate enough to live in developed countries, let me break down the U.S. system for you. Here are the only ways to get healthcare in the U.S.:

1) Go to prison or jail. Not the best care, but beats nothing
2) Be real poor. This will usually qualify you for Medicaid--which sucks, but is also better than nothing.
3) Be a child. There are usually programs for providing healthcare for kids.
4) Be over 65. This will qualify you for Medicare--which isn't the best by a longshot (many doctors won't accept it) but it's a lot better than Medicaid
5) Get a job with benefits. This means a full-time job (working as a cashier at Walmart won't cut it). Better come armed with a college degree. Quality is all over the map.
6) Join the military. Very good healthcare. But this could involve getting shot at.
7) Become a Congressman of other high-ranking government official. Best fucking care you can get. Expect gold-plated bedpans for yourself and your family, even as you rail against government-supported healthcare for everyone else.

Of course, you can also elect to pay for it yourself. But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates. A single emergency room visit could easily bankrupt even a moderately well-off individual. And don't even THINK about having surgery unless you've got a mansion to mortgage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[WrongSizeGlass]

1) Go to prison or jail. Not the best care, but beats nothing

No always. Take a look at California's prison healthcare issues. This guy will probably be charged by the state (instead of federal) and the state may even deal with him as a non-violent offender who gets house arrest (and has to pay for his own monitoring). The DA & prosecutor aren't stupid - they'll want to discourage this type of activity.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

I'm sorry that it's so tough for you guys in the US. Here in the UK, Cameron (like Reagan's mini-me Thatcher and various oddly-admired gentlemen all the way back to half-American Churchill) is trying his best to turn us into the 51st state.

But it turns out that quite a lot of British people love the NHS. And, imperfect as all human endeavours will be, so do I. And I don't just love it in principle - I, like almost everyone in the UK, have experienced and benefitted from it.

(I also have experienced US healthcare. Oh dear. The US does a few things very right - why must it get some things so wrong?)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[krazytekn0]

but until then he's still in Jail, you know how long it takes something to go to trial? at MINIMUM 1-2 years.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

So what you're saying is that he'll have to commit a more serious crime?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

The DA & prosecutor aren't stupid - they'll want to discourage this type of activity.

You're assuming the DA & prosecutor aren't stupid.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DreadPiratePizz]

Paying for yourself not practical? I don't smoke and I'm not overweight, and I pay $150/mo for full coverage. If I stay in the hospital, I'm never on the hook for more than $1500; my insurance pays the rest. Granted I am single and young, but I'm not exactly going bankrupt here. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy it can be a a huge burden, but if you can't afford that then it pays to not have kids and just take care of yourself.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[cob666]

While I agree with everything you said I will say that I am currently self employed and paying for my own health insurance, my monthly premiums are just over 600 per month (I'm 45 and in pretty good health). While routine visits are paid for I still have a $30 co-pay for every doctor visit and usually a $25 co-pay for prescriptions (although I have paid higher for more costly medication). Anything other than routine requires pre-authorization from the insurance company and is more times than not declined with no explanation the first or even second time my doctor requests it (such as physical therapy for a knee). Also, every year my premiums increase by 10-15 percent and my premiums are almost to the point where I will NOT be able to afford that monthly cost.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gl4ss]

breaking a house arrest to get into a real prison is.. well, fuck, it's much easier than robbing a bank of 1$. and doing something to get more time in the prison is easy too, like, getting drugs and then getting caught for them. for a good prison time he should have probably done a finance crime of federal proportions? I guess just showing up naked at the town house wouldn't cut it nowadays..

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Rogerborg]

You mean making the mistake of not harming anyone? I'm sure the next guy to try this will take careful note of that.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ultramk]

There's another option you're missing.
8) Make enough money to buy an individual insurance plan on your own. It's extremely expensive, and will probably be a big portion of your income unless you're pretty well-off, but people do it.

Otherwise good list, although I would quibble with 7... pretty much all full-time government workers get pretty damn good health care plans, not just the high ranking ones.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[swanzilla]

I suspect you have yet to make a substantial claim. Protip: Don't count on that max out-of-pocket being the end of the story.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[demonlapin]

Don't even have to be white. If you're male, no degree of poverty will qualify you for Medicaid. Disability, however, will.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Which means he just wont pay for it and thus go to jail, or will break house arrest and turn himself in for the same result.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if you don't pay? They kick you out of prison?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[BSAtHome]

Why do you assume he has a house?

House-arrest for a homeless. That'll be nice. Please stay on the corner of 5th and west st. for the duration of your time to be served.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[characterZer0]

Of course, you can also elect to pay for it yourself. But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates. A single emergency room visit could easily bankrupt even a moderately well-off individual. And don't even THINK about having surgery unless you've got a mansion to mortgage.

If you have a job that does not provide health insurance, they can probably still get it for you through their payroll processor and deduct it from your paycheck; then you do not even have to pay income tax on that money. You can get a family policy for under 10,000 USD per year. Have some money taken out pre-tax and put into an HSA to cover what you have to pay to cover your deducible. This will be about 4,000 USD per year for a family of four.

So, you can get health insurance for your family for 10,000 to 15,000 per year, and not have to pay much else.

Oh, you would rather have two cars, cable, and a big house than health insurance? That is your choice, stop whining to me about it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Your policy will be canceled the first time you go over the out of pocket, well maybe not canceled but not renewed at that price. You will also not be able to afford it once you stop being young.

Are you sure this is not a group policy?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hedwards]

A lot of people forget about that. What's worse is that for somebody in their 40s, you've got it easy, a lot of people can't get insurance at all no matter how much money they have. I would have been in that position were it not for my state having a pool for anybody that can pay, regardless of health condition. It's much more expensive than the other options, but at least it's there for those that can afford it.

In many states, those folks wouldn't have any insurance at all.

Makes me wonder how ignorant a person would have to be to believe that repeal and replace is a wise move over just fixing the problems in the current reform package. The one which requires at least 80% of individual and small group policies to be spent on things that are actually related to healthcare and 85% of policies for larger groups. Even without anything else, that's enough to justify not doing a full repeal.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

$7200/year is something many people could not afford at all. I would wager the majority of American families could not swing it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TheGratefulNet]

young.

yes, yes, you skip over the most obvious thing.

I'm nearly 50. I'm not in bad health but things do get worse over time, as you get older. they just do.

enjoy your youth and $150/mo payment. it won't last forever. remember this post in 20 or 30 years time.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

The national median household income is $45,000.

So that's $30,000 to $35,000 to live on for rent, food, water, power, shelter...

And, frankly, that's not much for a family these days.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

I don't really see other countries with universal care as "developed" in contrast to the US. Sure, they provide care to more people, and in the short term, things look great. But the reality is that none of these nations handle the real issue that is straight in the face of the US, rising healthcare costs. Universal care in other countries doesn't fix this. They just make someone else pay for it. In Japan, over 50% of the hospitals operate in the red. In Germany, doctors are forced to take substantially lower wages than in comparative countries, which has led to a number of protests consisting of tens of thousands of doctors and contributed to Germany's immigration deficit.

The US system sucks, but it's a lot easier to fix than in these other nations. Currently we have a corporatist system that favors corporations and restricts the freedom of the consumer. Government has picked winners and losers and restricted the consumer from making decisions on their own.. If you want to get lower prices and better care, you need to take the restrictions off of the individual and give them the same benefits and freedoms that an employer gets. By not endorsing HMOs and taking the restrictions off of HSAs, we allow increased competition in the market which leads to lower prices. We can see this actively working in areas of the medical field where people pay mostly cash for services such as ophthalmology or cosmetic surgery. Increased competition has resulted in significantly lower prices than in comparative medical fields.

With an HSA, I am in charge of my treatment and spending, and it matters. When I had an HMO, I went to the first place on the list that my health insurance provider recommended. I didn't care about the cost, because all I had to worry about was the copay. But now that I have an HSA, I am responsible for paying that first $2500 of my medical expenses out of my pocket. Now, that $2500 + my premium is still substantially cheaper than the HMO premiums I would be paying, but by making me consciously in charge of my medical expenditures, I am going to avoid paying as much of that $2500 as possible. I needed to get a sleep study done, and I called several places and found quotes ranging from $1000 to $3000. That's a huge difference in price. Active competition in the market rewards those with the better offers and punishes those who are overpriced. We don't have that in the US system. we instead run a system of corporatism where there is no direct competition and there are no negotiable prices. This is not capitalism. This is corporatism.

If you want to help people, the real answer is to lower the cost of medical care. This is the only real long term solution. Everything else just delays the inevitable.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jibekn]

Thats a horrible system..

150 AND you have a deductible?!

I pay 54$ per month, for my entire family, and that's only because we have a combined income over the poverty line, as you move towards the line, the monthly costs moves to 0.

I pay 0 for hospital, clinic and dr visits, with no yearly cap. Ambulance ride are 75$ a pop if needed, and hospital beds do come with a charge, but they're less than a local motel, around 40$ per night. I truly feel sorry for you Americans if what you described you consider a 'good deal' the rest of the world call it a rip off :(

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gclef]

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
    -- Winston Churchill

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[moonbender]

FWIW, approximately the same amount of money pays for full private coverage in Germany. (Most people pay far less, unemployed people pay nothing.) Visits to the doctor, prescription meds, glasses, hospital stays and surgery are basically all covered 100%. If you don't need the coverage for a full quarter, a part of the fees is returned.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ImaLamer]

Add to that - don't already be sick. At all. Nothing. Because you will be an automatic decline.

Otherwise, thanks to "Obamacare" you can get in on your state's high risk health pool... which is the only other real option for most people, who have something and thus are trying to find coverage. That's what capitalistic medicine produces - a system where you can never be sick.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

$600/mo? Cancel your plan, invest, and give half to a relative who agrees to take you in should the hospital try to take your assets. That's $7200/year. 5 healthy years would cover some extreme medical expenses. 10 healthy years and you could put yourself through medical school to be your own physician and be on the receiving side of insurance.

Paying cash meanwhile (assuming no new kids) is cheaper and you get exactly what you want.
Broken arm - $600
Flu $250
mild illness @Minute Clinic $100

Having kids can cost over $10,000 in a hospital - recommend insurance for newlyweds unless $20,000 has been saved.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[davidiii]

He's reporteded to have already gone to jail and has reportedly seen several nurses already and has a doctor's appointment on Friday. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/21/headlines#13

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Sir_Sri]

$1500 is a lot when you're out of work. And more to the point, how often can that 1500 re-occur? Admittedly I'm in canada so we don't treat people like they'll have to pay out of pocket. But my best friend at 29 had cancer. He was admitted, sent home, re-admitted to hospital several times in a week, and 3 times in one day. It wasn't even that the hospital was trying to be rid of him, he just had a lot of different parts of his body failing in different ways and they'd solve one problem, send him home (because the feeling is you recover better at home) and 2 days later something else would go wrong.

He's sorted out health wise now. But that's beside the point. If you end up in hospital multiple times in a month, how often will your insurance re-bill you.

What does "full coverage" mean? Prescription drugs? Do you have a co-pay? If you have a deductible of 1500 in hospital care (or something like that) it's certainly not 'full'. What if you go to a hospital in a different city than where you live? Does your insurance company approve (or not) of places you can go? Also, under what conditions can they drop your coverage. That was the trick with my friend, as he learned through friends in various support groups. In the US the first time you get cancer you're probably covered by insurance. But the moment they think you're cured for 3 months they drop your ass like a rock, and no one else will touch you with a 100 metre, I'm sorry, foot, pole, and then you're in deep shit.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[0100010001010011]

The US does a few things very right - why must it get some things so wrong?)

We rank up there with Mexico and Turkey as the only developed country without universal health care.
And with such industrious countries as Liberia & Myanmar that aren't on Metric yet.

USA USA USA.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

So, you can get health insurance for your family for 10,000 to 15,000 per year, and not have to pay much else.

Tell me, do you actually consider your words before you start typing away? Do you have any idea how much money that is to the average family in the U.S.? The average household income in the U.S. is $31,000. And that's before taxes, rent, food, etc. Do you really think someone making $31K a year can afford $10K-$15 just for health insurance?

Are you high, or just fucking stupid?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TheLink]

There's another option you're missing.
8) Make enough money to buy an individual insurance plan on your own. It's extremely expensive, and will probably be a big portion of your income unless you're pretty well-off, but people do it.

For some people that sounds very similar to option 9)
9) Buy a lottery ticket and win a lot of money. ;).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MobyDisk]

But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates

This is not always so.

My wife and I have been self employed for years and both pay for our own health care. I now work for a Fortune 500 company, and we still stay with our individual plans because they are cheaper. Here is the key difference: Companies provide high-end health care, while individual care has more gradations. My employer's healthcare has a $100 deductible, a low co-pay, and pays for every random doctor visit, dental appointment, or band-aid. My individual coverage has $1000 deductible but an out-of-pocket maximum. So it doesn't cover well visits, dental appointments, band-aids, and I have a $10 co-pay. But it does cover me if I get in an accident or have cancer. Isn't *that* what insurance is for?

The difference in the premiums pays for that $1000 deductible by the end of the year. Employer-sponsored health care is very expensive because they cannot vary the cost based on your age, demographics, life-style, etc. They do not require a check-up to get the insurance, and sometimes they have to cover pre-existing conditions. So the insurance companies are stuck with whoever they get, so they charge more for those plans.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Thelasko]

2) Be real poor. This will usually qualify you for Medicaid--which sucks, but is also better than nothing.

I have a relative on Medicaid that received better pre-natal care than a coworker with group health insurance from a fortune 500 company. She received more frequent doctor visits, with a 3d ultrasound that private insurance won't pay for.

5) Get a job with benefits. This means a full-time job (working as a cashier at Walmart won't cut it).

Actually, Walmart cashiers do get access to group health insurance. I have another relative that works as one. There are some criteria that have to be met though. (IIRC must work for the company longer than 6 months, and work more than 30 hours per week)

It's the people working for much smaller companies that can't get health insurance, because the company doesn't have enough employees to be considered a "group".

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[spiffmastercow]

This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.

Just because you don't know anyone below the 95th percentile in earnings doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

There's another option you're missing. 8) Make enough money to buy an individual insurance plan on your own. It's extremely expensive, and will probably be a big portion of your income unless you're pretty well-off, but people do it.

40 year old male, Kaiser - $8k deductible - 80% coverage afterwards = $148/month. It goes up to $400/month for no deductible, but a doctor visit is only about $150 out of pocket, so I don't see why people buy cadillac plans unless they're very frequently sick.

Anyways, it's not that expensive.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ImaLamer]

2) Be real poor. This will usually qualify you for Medicaid--which sucks, but is also better than nothing.
 

Except this doesn't apply in most states. You can't just be poor to get Medicaid - you also have to show that you are disabled or suffer from a long term illness. Specifically you have to be below the poverty level. In my state, for example, they then refer your claim to the Social Security Administration which can take up to three years to get approved. It wasn't always like this, ten years ago it wasn't, but it's now in place, essentially, to keep people off of Medicaid because state revenues are down (Medicaid is paid half by the Fed, half by the state). The basic point is this varies by state. Which to some sounds wonderful. States rights and so forth - but if you live in a state that isn't doing well or has elected those who want to roll the usage back then they have shot themselves in the foot. They don't have the scale anymore of other states and thus drive out doctors (less Medicaid receipts to take in) and drive up costs (demand on doctors drive up asking prices, and thus doctors feel less of a need to supplement their income with Medicaid patients).

Anecdotal; My buddy is in full on doctor-mode and left his practice after two years because the partner didn't want to take Medicaid patients. Being an OB he said it only makes sense to have 10-25% of your clients be from Medicaid as it pays, it's guaranteed and they collect slightly less. The partner was just old fashioned and against the Medicaid program. He left because looking at their cash flow he realized they'd be broke in 5 years.

3) Be a child. There are usually programs for providing healthcare for kids.

I'm not sure anymore, but I do believe this isn't in all states either. It's sort-of like Medicaid and states could refuse to implement the SCHIP/CHIP (children's health insurance) programs if they wanted to and get a payout later from the Fed... George W. Bush in Texas was a great example. The pro-life man, who found Jesus, oversaw a record number of executions but didn't implement a SCHIP plan in their state.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[tukang]

You could pay for it yourself by buying insurance ... and while it isn't cheap, you don't need to be Bill Gates to do that

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the U.S. population has health care?

Do you have health care?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[erroneus]

Seems we are in good company. Lots of people have observed the same thing. What we need is a kind of group where we can share information and maybe even protest what is going on. It should be exclusive to white males. We can call it some sort of klan.

And while we're at it, let's publish a magazine to empower the white male... let's call it "White Power." If that's disagreeable, let's go with "Ivory."

We should then begin to call ourselves a discriminated minority (which, by now we are) and campaign for affirmative action to be taken.

But you know, you said everything anyone ever wanted to know about you in the last part: "luckily I managed to pull myself out of it and become a breadwinner again..." The other discriminated minority members have a demonstrable history of not pulling themselves out of it. I am not going to speculate as to why they don't or can't, and only state that the history is there and that where others resort to criminal behavior, you continued trying to work and eventually got there.

As long as we [they] are allowed to discriminate based on ethnicity, sex, age or other, they will. Someone needs to "sting" the programs that discriminate against while males seeking to keep things going.

I have similar complaints and experiences. And when asked to donate to the Salvation Army, I refuse and begin to tell the story about how I sought help from them after years of donating only to be turned away while others continued getting help. But in a way, it's good for me... and good for you too.

Nothing makes a person "better" than others unless they actually work at it. It has been claimed by people on both sides of the issue that the programs generally weaken incentive for people to make their own way in life and to provide for themselves. As white males know consciously or unconsciously that they have nothing to fall back on if disaster strikes, they are prone to working harder, taking fewer risks and engaging in less criminal behavior. And in contrast... (Do I really need to spell it out?)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[pluther]

I'm guessing that's also what he pays after his company, or school, or parents, pay the rest.

Either that, or it's not nearly as comprehensive as he thinks.

Or he lives in a state where there's a good state plan available. (There's a few states doing this now.)

Things are getting better, though. I've been searching to get a plan myself, and have found a couple of decent options in the $300-$400 range. Which is a vast improvement over last time I looked, a few years ago, when the same plans were $1000-$1200 or so. (One of changes with so-called "Obamacare" is they're no longer allowed to reject me because I had malaria five years ago.)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That's pretty much it. This has to be one of the saddest stories I've ever heard.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

When you're young, be on your parents policy

Assumption of privileged background. I stopped reading here and skipped to the last paragraph, as it's clear you don't live in the real world. My assumption was confirmed:

Everyone I know has health care they're happy with

In the real world, many people don't have a "parents policy" to be on and people can have serious health conditions from a young age which preclude most insurance options or eventually drive their premiums up to unaffordability.

(And I say this as someone who was born into a family with private healthcare in a country where most people don't have it. I was lucky and know it. You are lucky and don't know it.)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MacGyver2210]

A hospital can't turn anyone away...from the emergency room. If you go into the ER with stomach pain, and it turns out to be cancer, they are more than welcome to say "Hey, we took care of you...and found out you have cancer. Without insurance, we won't help you anymore." That's how they work. That's what they do.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[thesandtiger]

What you said.

I just left one job for another that starts in 2 months and for me, a single female in my 30's with no medical issues what-so-ever, keeping my insurance would cost over $850 per month. And the insurance wasn't even that good!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[characterZer0]

What is the average family income after you remove those who already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid? That would be the pertinent number.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Martin Blank]

Breaking house arrest doesn't necessarily mean prison. It may just mean county jail.

Had he shown up with an unloaded firearm or a small, dull knife, he would have gone to prison but probably would have tacked five years onto the sentence.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[errandum]

Your healthcare system is a joke (USA's), but politics seem to be put in the way of a decent program. That and media propaganda. And insurance companies lobbying.

It's sad that the most (or one of the most) developed country in the world doesn't provide decent health care for the average joe that fell on hard times. Most countries (including some third world ones) have this as one of their priorities.

I really wonder why do your representatives (you vote for them) don't believe it is.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[pluther]

Hah, it's not only an amazingly good deal over here, it's so good I doubt he's giving us all the information. :)

The best plan I've been able to find for myself (44, non-smoking, healthy male) is about $300/month, and includes both deductible and co-pay.

And this is after vast improvements were made starting with the Obama administration. It used to be even worse.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[azalin]

For those of you who don't know what "full private coverage" means (eg everyone not from germany):
* Single or double room if you are in hospital (your choice)
* free choice of clinic
* treatment by the chief physician
* full dental care
* glasses, contact lenses
* alternative medication and treatment (eg acupuncture)
* massage and physiotherapie
* psychotherapy
All paid for. You usally get the best your hospital / doctor has to offer.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[azalin]

I forgot: medication too, of course

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Sir_Sri]

From everything I can tell, neither medicaid nor medicare provide bad, or inefficient care. There are, like any system, inefficiencies, and errors. But overall they seem to do pretty well for the problem they are tasked with. Medicare would save a bunch of money if covered everyone over 60 rather than over 65, but you aren't going to convince politicians of that, and it would be even more efficient if it was anyone over 50.

I'm not an american, but we all have the same biases about perception of care. We think that latest drug/treatment/scan whatever is the best way to do go. We think that you want the top graduate from medical school etc. In practice those don't necessarily equate to the best benefit to patients, nor the best cost effective care. Lots of drugs are expensive re-engineers of existing drugs, and aren't any better, but people want them anyway. Paying a doctor 250k/year when you could pay 175k who had an academic average 5% lower doesn't necessarily equate to worse medical care. A good system objectively assesses what is the most effective way to deliver care with the money available, and tries to work past the publics biases. That's an unpleasant exercise in statistics - the media always loves that one case in a million that goes catastrophically wrong, but is not an overall picture of health care performance. It's important when judging how well a system is doing to ignore media sensationalism, and focus on how the systems judge themselves against each other, and how they are doing overall with the budgets they have.

Sure, medicare, medicaid, the NHS, the french health system, the canadian health system all have things that can be improved. But overall they seem to do pretty well.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[yarnosh]

buy your own. It costs the same as an iPod.

Unless you have some kind of existing medical condition. In which case you're likely uninsurable on your own. It isn't even that it is expensive. They just won't offer you a policy at all. Many people are in this boat.

When you're older, have a career. An older person without health insurance is making poor decisions.

God forbid you try to start your own small business or work freelance. Or are just unemployed but still need medical care.

Worst case, there are free clinics (there's one in my town open every Wednesday) and a hospital can't turn anyone away.

A hospital can most certainly turn you away if your condition is not critical. They're only obligated to stabilize you and send you on your way.

This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.

The system is horribly broken. The article is most certainly not a troll. I know so many people without proper medical coverage it is scary.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[kaiser423]

With whom and where!?!?!?!?!?!? Please, let me know.

Young, fresh out of college, healthy as can be basic healthcare (like what I had when covered by parents) was 3x that.

Maybe you live in one of the states that isn't monopoly provided by one or two providers like mine, where prices are ridiculous. But my state is the norm -- 1, maybe 2 real providers of healthcare with no competition.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Martin Blank]

Insurance will generally cover you if you travel and a medical emergency comes up, though they may pressure you to transfer to a local, in-network hospital as soon as you're able. This is preferable anyway, as your own doctor is more available and your friends and family can visit and support you. Coverage is sometimes less, but that can be appealed and is often overturned depending on the circumstances. Going to an out-of-network doctor for a cold you have in another state isn't likely to be well-covered, while having a heart attack is going to be pretty much fully-covered.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

Because he's a conservative who's never been unemployed, broke, and sick. He thinks that all we need is a tax-free savings account to save our healthcare system. He thinks there is an unemployed cancer patient sitting out there who would be just fine--if only he could pay for his own healthcare without a small tax on his savings. All we need is for the government to get out of the way; and all the poor, unemployed, underemployed, etc, would finally have the freedom to pay for their own healthcare with the millions of $ that are going to magically appear out of nowhere once we cut taxes on the rich and corporations.

In other words, because he's an deluded ideologue with no connection to reality.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[synapse7]

Point #5 assumes doctors in your area are seeing new patients, which is a situation I have recently run into.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

I stopped reading here and skipped to the last paragraph, as it's clear you don't live in the real world.

You should have at least finished reading the sentence.

A policy for a 20 year old is less than $100/month. I paid my own way through college driving tow trucks and paid for my own health insurance. I have ZERO SYMPATHY for any college kid who doesn't have insurance. Give up the iPod and the frat parties and accept some responsibility.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[cyberchondriac]

I'm sure that's true, but there are also Brits who detest the quality of the NHS. My in-laws have good friends who live just outside London, and they voluntarily pay for their own health care, eschewing the NHS. They're not rich, they just feel the quality of the care is subpar, and they've said they hope America doesn't make the same mistake.

Really though, I don't think the real problem for US health care insurance is how it's paid for (private or gov't) it's simply that's its too damn expensive. There's no such thing as "free" health care, it's paid for somehow or other. There's far too much bloat and graft in the system, and having the US government -so well known for it's fiscal efficiency(sarc)- pay for it isn't likely to fix that, if anything, it'll exacerbate it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[georgesdev]

You forgot another option: emigrate to France, Sweden, or other country with good health service

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[sgt scrub]

turn us into the 51st state.

Cool! Our first Parliament run state.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[martyros]

And with such industrious countries as Liberia & Myanmar that aren't on Metric yet.

UK isn't really on the metric either -- not 100%. Grams / kilos seems to have taken root for lots of things; but most people still measure their weight in stone, for crying out loud. Speed limits and distance signs are still done in miles; pubs still serve pints. Temperature is measured in Celcius, and the younger generation don't have a "sense" for what numbers in Fahrenheit are. Things on the order of a meter are measured in meters, but feet are still bandied about quite a bit.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

So what you're saying is there's very little correlation between universal healthcare and the metric system on one side, and general prosperity and standard of living on the other?

Or are you expecting your audience to swallow the idea that "haha, might as well go to Turkey for my health care needs, it's just as bad" or "I might as well set up my new research lab in Liberia, it's just as bad?"

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[jrroche]

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. The first half of your post is such a blatantly terrible idea it has to be assumed you are joking. The rest of the post drops the humorous tone and just ventures off into ignorant racism.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Stenchwarrior]

Didn't TFA say his trial was set for end of June?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gutnor]

Anyways, it's not that expensive

Is my sarcasm detector broken or the shittiest, most expensive coverage I have ever heard of is really considered "not that expensive" in the US ?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Duradin]

Hi, I'm Duradin. I have insurance and I wanted to see the federal government reduce all the health insurance companies to smoldering hulks broken on the shores of civilized health care.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Bill_the_Engineer]

1. When you're young, be on your parents policy or buy your own. It costs the same as an iPod. A young person without health insurance is making poor decisions.

Live off of parents.

2. When you're older, have a career. An older person without health insurance is making poor decisions.

Get a job. check. Just pray you don't lose it and have to compete with younger people for a new one.

3. When you're old, the government already provides.

You assume that the government hasn't "ended Medicare as we know it" when we reach the qualifying age. Also its not the best option and good luck getting an appointment with a doctor that accepts it.

Worst case, there are free clinics (there's one in my town open every Wednesday) and a hospital can't turn anyone away.

Yep nothing like the quality care you can get from that one day of the week clinic. As for the hospital, they can't turn anyone away with a medical emergency. You act like this is free. Guess what it's not. All the rule states is that they can't use the ability to pay as a condition for treatment. They can and will demand payment. But hey you're broke anyway what is one more delinquent bill? Just don't think about that potential new employer performing credit checks, your ability to get a loan when you need it, keeping your life savings or your home.

Oh what about the hospital? It will eat your expense along with everyone else's and eventually will just close their emergency room. Soon the only emergency room will be the one hospital that is owned and operated by the state university. Don't expect your treatment to start any sooner than 4 hours after you arrive, unless you are "fortunate" enough to have a condition serious enough to promote you up the triage list.

This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.

You have no clue and your friends consist of only coworkers and others in your particular social and economic class.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Wiarumas]

I'm young also and I have really great insurance paying $400 for my entire family. However, I recently filed a claim over something simple and it ended up charging me $400 for a simple doctor visit because of a loophole the insurance company found in the claim. Looks good on paper until you need care and realize that a profit organization will try to swindle their way out of providing service any way they can. Its very easy for me to sympathize for older and/or sick people. More substantial health care reform will happen in the next 10 years or so since the baby boomers will (increasingly) see how ugly our system is.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

The ones I do, do have this as a priority.

The problem is the media no longer calls out BS. So when some gets yup and goes on about the cost of health care, invents thing that are not in the health care bill, goes out of there way to scare seniors, no major agency calls there bullshit.

To not have federal level health care is the most stupid and expensive way to have healthcare.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Dachannien]

Become a Congressman of other high-ranking government official. Best fucking care you can get.

Congressmen are covered under FEHB, meaning they get the exact same health care benefits that every single federal employee gets.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[sgt scrub]

remember this post in 20 or 30 years time.

And he should forget the $60,000 he gave away for nothing more than medical care coupons over those years too.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

You're not paying for it yourself.
You're insurance is.
I would like to know where you get full coverage for 150 a month, and what you mean by full coverage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[j-beda]

I don't really see other countries with universal care as "developed" in contrast to the US. Sure, they provide care to more people, and in the short term, things look great. But the reality is that none of these nations handle the real issue that is straight in the face of the US, rising healthcare costs. Universal care in other countries doesn't fix this. They just make someone else pay for it. In Japan, over 50% of the hospitals operate in the red. In Germany, doctors are forced to take substantially lower wages than in comparative countries, which has led to a number of protests consisting of tens of thousands of doctors and contributed to Germany's immigration deficit.

The US system sucks, but it's a lot easier to fix than in these other nations.

I don't agree. The types of problems that places like the EU countries and Canada are experiencing for example in their health care systems are ones of supply issues (wait times for example), payment formulas (hospital and physician payments for example), and coverage policy debates (what should be covered? IVF, sex changes, experimental, etc.) While these are significant issues, fundamentally the systems are working to provide reasonable care to the majority of the population without undue hardship on the individual or the society as a whole. Additionally, the potential changes to the existing systems to address current and future shortcomings are not mired in political difficulties in the way the politicization of healthcare in the US has made it virtually impossible to craft any significant reforms. In contrast to pretty much the rest of the "developed" world, the US is spending huge amounts on a per-capita basis, with large fractions of the population getting inadequate care at a very high cost to the individual and a very high cost to the economy. It is a very real challenge for a US company to provide health coverage to its workforce while still being competitive with a non-US company operating in a country with a more workable health-care system.

Not that I disagree with all of redemtionboy's points. Greater competition, removal of conflicts of interest, better consumer knowledge, and all sorts of other tweaks could result in huge increases in efficiencies to the whole health care system. Fundamentally however I feel that healthcare is probably not something I want to be completely "market-driven" - particularly since I find it hard to believe that the market will inevitably be manipulated to the determent of the patient/customer.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

The median household income in the US is $44k. The mean household income in the US is $60k. Where did you get $31k?

I'm also not sure where the other poster got $15k for health insurance after saying an HSA would be $4k. It might get to $10k or $11k if you had to pay the maximum out of pocket expense every single year but that seems pretty unlikely for most people.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[martyros]

my monthly premiums are just over 600 per month (I'm 45 and in pretty good health)

Have you considered catastrophic health insurance? Catastrohpic health insurance has a really high deductible, like around $6000. Then most of your run-of-the-mill health care is just paid out-of-pocket, but if you end up needing a $100k operation, you don't break the bank. It's significantly cheaper, and (I think) is probably a better way to go if you're reasonably healthy.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[citylivin]

"Paying for yourself not practical? I don't smoke and I'm not overweight, and I pay $150/mo for full coverage."

LOL. Are you saying that 150$ a month is a good deal? I pay about $120/ month for extended health for my whole family (3 persons). Thats 80% covered on all dental, optical, Rx (drugs). This is seperate from standard medical care that everyone gets. Obviously all medical procedures (that are not dental, optical, or paying for drugs) are covered 100% by the government such as surgeries, shots, checkups, clinic visits, hospital visits, ambulances... etc.. This is in canada in case you are curious.

You think you have it good? HA! even your comparatively (american) small amount, based on the fact that you are young and have no problems, can not compare with an average person (ie me), in a country with universal healthcare. I am able to support my whole family for the same or less amount!

Just wait till you have a kid or other dependent which may not necessarily be as healthy as you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Artifakt]

At least that situation is equal in some respects. If you never married the deadbeat, you can still become ineligible for the same reason once the judge approves child support. The biggest difference is usually the cost of compelling the unmarried father to take a paternity test. In some states, it also is significantly harder to get the authorities to track an unwed father down and administer such a test, as the authorities tend to remember all the cases where someone turned out not to be the father, and resist enforcement.
          However, a lot of young men (and I use that term very loosely), will tell these future unemployed mothers all sorts of stories about how marriage itself can backfire on them in just such ways. The system sometimes penalises people honestly attempting to commit to a lifetime relationship, but among people below the poverty level, greatly exaggerated rumours make it all much worse.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[testpoint]

Richard James Verone, age 57, did not arrive at his current state of affairs without making a long series of bad decisions. The decision to rob a bank to get medical care is just the most recent.

I've worked with the homeless and incarcerated for over 40 years. I've worked with people in the U.S. and third world countries who need medical care and have little money. Unlike elrous0's position - "Sad, but I can see doing it too" it is never necessary to do something misguided or illegal to get medical care. It is never necessary to rely on the government. Family, friends, private relief and charitable organizations, generous individuals and a willingness to seek them out will get the job done.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

When you're young, be on your parents policy or buy your own. It costs the same as an iPod. A young person without health insurance is making poor decisions.

Why's that? It's already admitted that young people are being massively ripped off by insurance prices, that's why Obamacare relies on getting all the young people to buy into the system. Otherwise the system is hugely underfunded.

What would actually make sense would be to have a new insurance that only sells insurance to young people. Premiums would be really low, much less than an iPod per month.

Oh but that's not allowed because it's discrimination against old people. What a nice, free country we live in.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MHolmesIV]

I believe robbing a bank is automatically federal jurisdiction, but that may just be watching too many movies.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[boast]

I had medicaid when I was a kid. So what did the hospital do? They kept giving me a bunch of expensive tests and exams (unneeded, but my mom didn't know better), which the government would pay for. Since it kept turning out so expensive, the government cut my medicaid. Hospital wins, I lose. I remember telling my friend, and he said the same thing happened to him. I wonder how many more places this exists, where hospitals take advantage in order to get money.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jstlook]

And I'm paying $1200/mo for full coverage. I'm early 30s, don't smoke, am not overweight, and am just finishing my graduate degree. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy, it can be a huge burden, like the present condition I find myself in.

And I get sick of the people above who think that because they're in a good situation that insurance companies paint all people as equal. The simple fact is insurance companies are based off statistics, and they run numbers extremely well. My theory is if they put enough people into the camp above that those people will keep them rolling in profit at the expense of people in my camp. Unless you're a part of a large company (that will typically cover a lot of costs you don't see, mind), you're going to be paying rates like I am.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

It costs the same as an iPod.

Do you buy an iPod every month?

A voice and data plan for a iPod/Droid/Whatever costs the same as health insurance for an early-20-something. Every month.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[I am Jack's username]

8) Stop voting for the members of corporatocratic parties (for this and many other good reasons), voting instead for people who will reduce the $749 trillion military budget, and spending it instead on preventing ill people from being bankrupted by medical bills. You know, like in other developed countries.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ebh]

When I'm in your town, I'll be sure to have cancer only on Wednesdays.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[sjames]

Then he'll just have to violate his house arrest and go kick a cop squarely in the ass once lightly and await his second offense.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Martin Blank]

The presence of national healthcare doesn't necessarily solve the issues. Doctors in the US often become doctors for the pay. A significant proportion become specialists because they can command even higher pay. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008, the average pay for family and general physicians was $186,000, while the average pay for specialists was nearly double at $340,000. Specialists often go that route to help pay off student loans, which can reach more than $200,000.

The US is also not coming up with enough doctors, with about 70% of doctors working as specialists, and existing shortages are going to become much bigger problems down the line. Of course, as it takes years to train a doctor, whatever solutions are brought up now are going to take a decade -- at least -- to bear fruit.

Whether it's the right path or not, universal healthcare will exacerbate the effects of that shortage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[phlobus]

But it does cover me if I get in an accident or have cancer. Isn't *that* what insurance is for?

The difference in the premiums pays for that $1000 deductible by the end of the year. Employer-sponsored health care is very expensive because they cannot vary the cost based on your age, demographics, life-style, etc. They do not require a check-up to get the insurance, and sometimes they have to cover pre-existing conditions. So the insurance companies are stuck with whoever they get, so they charge more for those plans.

Your current coverage plan will certainly cover you if you get sick or have an accident - you are right on that. As someone who spent some time working as an independent contractor I went through getting individual insurance a few times over.

Here is the kicker though: Like any insurance policy it expires and is renewed each year. Assume you DO get have an accident and it ends up costing the insurance company money - watch the nice low premium you are enjoying now skyrocket for next year. If you get sick with something actually serious (you mention cancer) - watch them not renew the policy AT ALL. They'll drop you so fast you won't know what hit you.

That is the advantage of group coverage - they can't do that. All the people I've ever met that ever say "the current system works fine" have never actually been sick and/or out of work.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Schadrach]

On the other side of that, learning after the fact that the child isn't *actually* yours is not grounds for a male to get out of paying child support (you know, by reassigning the child support obligation to the actual father). You see, you can be a dead-beat dad without actually being the dad.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[SETIGuy]

This type of story seems to appear from time to time, not always healthcare related. There are no jobs, unemployment rates in inner city neighborhoods is 25% or more. There are people who have gotten out of prison and have re-offended or violated parole because surviving in prison is easier than surviving on the outside. Three meals a day and some time in the exercise yard might be better than no meals a day living on a bench at the bus stop. Plus, the members of the opposing gang in prison don't have guns.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

A vast majority of people in the US do NOT have that choice. A majority of them do NOT have new cars, big house or pay more then 20 bucks a month for their TV.

So get your head out of your ass and think about this issue in practical terms.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

A hospital can most certainly turn you away if your condition is not critical. They're only obligated to stabilize you and send you on your way.

For non-critical care, why is it so darn expensive? Why do we need insurance to go get an antibiotic prescription for strep throat?

Oh, someone broke their arm, that'll be $8k for a plaster cast please.

Oh, you need some stitches for that cut, that'll be 15 minutes and $2k please.

We'll never solve the insurance problem in this country because insurance isn't the problem.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Wiarumas]

My wife is a nurse in a hospital and wouldn't have health care if it wasn't for me providing it through my employer.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Schadrach]

Remember, 57% of college admittance being male was proof of sexism and a need for explicit benefits to females to encourage more females to attend college. 57% of college admittance being female is proof of sexism and a need for explicit benefits to females to encourage more females to attend college.

LOLSOB.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[NMerriam]

Awesome! All you have to do is stay 20 forever, and never get sick and you're set.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

How is $109/month being ripped off? The Kaiser plan I bought in college is now $134/month, which is about $20 more a month than it cost me 15 years ago.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[sbrown123]

with him as a non-violent offender who gets house arrest (and has to pay for his own monitoring). The DA & prosecutor aren't stupid

That will teach him. When he gets out he will have to go physically harm someone. The DA & prosecutor are so clever!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[carpefishus]

First off #7 is just #5. Free health care for all sounds great to me but who is going to pay for it? Obama just put the US in debt by $800,000,000,000. If Obama stopped all the wars that he promised that he would pull out of, including his new one, the resulting savings would take 15 years to pay off that debt. And that is only if we were not paying interest on the bonds. So far the only thing that Obama has made to successfully pull out is Congressman Weiner. So again, where is this money going to come from? You list "Medicaid - which sucks" and "Medicare--which isn't the best by a longshot". What makes you think that Obamacare will be any better? It will be run by the same government that brings you this wonder. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002793/Alabama-tornado-hit-family-denied-FEMA-grant-repair-home.html What will save this country is a mindset of personal responsibility rather than a mindset of entitlement and victim-hood. And since we are quoting Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. -- Sir Winston Churchill

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hylandr]

Of what year? Seriously, it took Oregon more than a Year to process kiddy porn evidence while the guy sat in Jail waiting. I can only imagine what the officers were doing that took so long though...

- Dan.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[canajin56]

One dollar is under the limit for classifying it as "bank robbery." That's why it says "larceny."

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

Oh what about the hospital? It will eat your expense along with everyone else's and eventually will just close their emergency room.

Are you kidding? Hospitals already massively inflate the cost of medical services to provide their own form of "insurance" -- make the people who can pay, pay and pay dearly.

I mean look at this: http://esrati.com/how-much-do-3-stitches-cost/1192/

The hospital bill came-
$39.38 for “Medical surgical supplies and devices- General
$249 for Emergency Room- General
$600 for Emergency Room- Other ER
Total, in addition to the $535 above- another $888.38
Total for 3 stitches: $1423.38 or $474.46 per stitch.

What on earth do you think the $849 "ER" fee is for, given that the ER visit was to get 3 stitches?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[tbannist]

In no small part, American health care is too expensive because of how it's paid for. Estimates consistently show about 30% of all health care spending goes into the billing system. I've heard horror stories about how the average doctor may have to deal with over 100 different insurance companies each of which has it's own long forms that need to be filled out exactly correctly. Most apparently have staff who's only job is filling out that billing paperwork so the doctor actually gets paid and that many insurance companies will reject claims for inconsequential errors.

That's just the direct costs for the way they do things, there's also the fact that the U.S. system encourages people to let issues fester until they become emergencies. Medical issues which could have been easily treated in their early stages can become extremely expensive to cure because the patient was encouraged not to get it looked at by high deductibles and the fear of having coverage canceled because a potentially minor issue.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

A policy for a healthy 20 year old is less than $100/month. Firstly you have to be healthy to (i) be offered such a cheap plan; (ii) to be able to work to afford it. Then recall that you are quoting the base price of the plan, not the actual price of healthcare once deductibles/copays/all that bullshit actually comes to presenting you with the bill.

So, let's say you're healthy and you're intelligent and you manage to find a job. Then you get a horrible chronic condition. Then you have to be able to afford the increases in premiums because you keep claiming. Oh, and all those regular deductibles won't be going away either.

In short, you are both lucky and stupid. And you're loud about it. You're not helping America's stereotype.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Tr3vin]

It really depends on who you work for and your past health. I'm in my early 20s and have had rheumatoid arthritis since high school. My meds currently cost about $400 a week and this price has constantly gone up. Unfortunately for people like me, there isn't much we can do. It doesn't matter that we do our best to stay healthy and take advantage of preventative care. Insurance / pharma companies exist to make money. They like people like you because you have been very healthy so it is easy money. They don't want people like me since we cost too much.

That said, I am lucky enough to have good insurance through my employer right now, so I only have to pay $150/mo for my meds. If I were to lose my job, I would be shit outta luck. Getting my own plan or getting back on insurance after losing it can cause all kinds of trouble and be very costly. These costs prevent me from starting my own company, thereby adding to the job market and helping the economy. I would love to have the financial flexibility that others my age have, but essentially putting a new spec'd out MacBook Air into my body every month is a bit costly.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

" Universal care in other countries doesn't fix this. "
Yes, in fact it can.

Remember, much of are cots are acquired because we DON"T have UHC.

Poor women go into ER to complain about 'Chest pains' and then mention they might be pregnant to gt a pregnancy kit. So they get 2000 in tests when all they really needed was a 15 dollar pregnancy kit.

People go to ER to get treated for something that would have been substantial cheaper if they had access to a doctor to get treated right away instead of having to wait for an emergency.

Dental issues are seldom considered an emergency.. until it's so infected that have to go to the ER because the infection is spreading to the brain.

People get minimum they needed to get to treat the emergency, not the underling problem, so they come back every time a chronic problem becomes and emergency.

And so on..

We do pay for this, with higher Dr. and hospital costs, higher insurance rates.

This doesn't even get into how not having UHC strangles many small and growing business.
Get to a point where you need senior people? you will need to provide health care for those employees. This costs business a lot of money. If we all paid with taxes, then there would be less of a burden an small business.

UHC lowers the cost of health. The market, by it's very nature, will not help people. There is NO competing for 50% of the population. given a free market, they have no choice.

You're solution leads to great and cheep healthcare for the most well off people only, because insurance is about offsetting costs. SO it's in the business best interest to insure you until you leave the optimal area. so if your re 18-30, and make 150K+ a year, the 'free market' will be happy to help you.

This is shown in history.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MoonBuggy]

It's a whole different league to the US, though - the British government having instituted a major change a little more softly than they might have done really just means it might take an extra generation to permeate fully (although I agree that miles on the road signs are silly); the US still has all the cost and difficulty ahead of them if they ever do decide to change. The places in UK industry where metric standardisation is economically important have all long since changed fully, so people using antiquated units for their weight is hardly doing that much harm - at some point pints will probably become half litres (even I can live with 68ml less beer), The Sun and The Daily Mail will have a field day with it (damn Europeans stealing the working man's beer), and everybody will still call them pints in the pub for a good 25 years afterwards, but the point is the change is happening under its own momentum now.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nadaka]

Really? At 28, non-smoker, non-drinker, not over weight, they wanted $1100 a month for personal insurance when got laid off.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TheSpoom]

The irony of him robbing the Royal Bank of Canada cannot be overstated.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hobo sapiens]

"Everyone I know has health care they're happy with"

Ah yes, and since you know *everyone* there is no problem with the current health care system. We should all just move along because there's nothing to see here. Something like that?

Don't be naive.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[sjames]

For most families it would be more like "Oh, so you want a home, a way to get to work, health care AND food".

10,000-15,000 really will break most average people. Byt I guess to assholes like you, they can just go to hell as long ans you've got yours, right?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Do you have health insurance?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[KermodeBear]

One thing that people often forget is that you can get very individualized plans, and these can cut the costs dramatically.

Instead of general health insurance, ask for catastrophic health insurance. As in: You pay out of pocket for all regular doctor visits and medication. Get insurance for things like "I cracked my head open and my brain is exposed." Telling doctors that you are paying in cash, out of pocket, will often reduce your costs as well.

One reason that insurance rates are so stupidly high is the free doctor visits. This causes people who get the smallest sniffle to run to the doctor because, oh my god, surely I cannot survive a few days with a minor cold! There are people out there who are like this. I know many of them.

Car analogy: You don't get car insurance for a burnt out headlight. You get car insurance for a major crash.

Insurance is costly but it can be less so with a few changes in the contract.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[rcamera]

i agree that it can cost over $10,000 for birth. the itemized bill i got from the hospital ~4 years was for over $60,000. fortunately, i am employed/insured, so it cost ~$400 out-of-pocket (plus insurance premiums plus co-payments for each prenatal visit). the itemized bill was actually funny because it showed a) the procedure, b) the cost, c) what the insurance company paid, and d) how much i owed out of pocket.

most of the items looked something like this; a) nurse visit for blood pressure reading, b) $2,500 due, c) $15 paid by insurance, and d) $0 owed

if i had no insurance, then a) and b) would remain the same. c) would be $0, and d) would be $2,500

broken arm for $600? emergency room x-rays cost over $1,000. unless maybe you had an appointment at a radiologist prior to the break occurring, and therefore didn't have an er visit? or maybe the casting cost negative dollars?

oh, now i see. i just got trolled.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Shrike82]

UK isn't really on the metric either -- not 100%. ... Temperature is measured in Celcius, and the younger generation don't have a "sense" for what numbers in Fahrenheit are.

Celsius is much more closely related to the SI for temperature (Kelvin) than Farenheit is. We don't understand Farenheit, nor do we need to. The only place that I've experienced using that system is America.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[GooberToo]

Bullshit. They are absolutely fucking idiots. Illegals come into this country, frequently to get health care and to vote in our elections. Its done every day. If you're a repeat offender, they keep you in jail and you do receive decent to good health care.

And as its unpopular to actually verify citizenship in border states for elections, millions of illegals vote every year.

While I don't agree with everything going on in Arizona, the simple truth is, most people who oppose it are either ignorant morons (vast, vast majority who are not part of the second group) who have no idea what's actually going on or are illegals and/or friends/family of illegals.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[NMerriam]

Oh, you would rather have two cars, cable, and a big house than health insurance? That is your choice, stop whining to me about it.

Also, if homeless people would stop buying gold dubloons and fine art, maybe they could buy a nice house, too!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Splab]

hot damn, I should look into that, public healthcare here in Denmark sucks and the private clinics aren't all that good. Slight inconvenience going to Germany, but insurance + air/train to Germany would still be less than what I paid last year for MRI and a broken foot.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RogerWilco]

Yeah, it's about the same in the Netherlands. It's 1100-1300 euro per year. The difference is in things like if you get TV and newspaper at your bed when in hospital, not in the stuff covered. This is the "standard healthcare package" as defined by the government. Insurance companies all have to provide it, and compete on the extra options. There's also additional packages but I won't go into that, basically everything you really need is covered in the standard package.

But yeah, no matter if you're 20 or 100, healthy or chronically ill, have a history of smoking, being overweight or anything like that. This is what you pay in The Netherlands.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hobo sapiens]

yes, because you're 20 years old and male.

Try being a 35 year old woman. Or having children. Or just getting older.

You suffer from the same narrow minded mentality as many others here: oh, it doesn't affect me (yet) so it's not a problem! What's wrong with these whiners?

Healthcare in the US is broken beyond belief. You are either incredibly naive or a beneficiary of this broken system.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PhoenixFlare]

Oh, you would rather have two cars, cable, and a big house than health insurance? That is your choice, stop whining to me about it.

No, it's more like I would rather have food, electricity, and a place to rent than health insurance at that cost. I'm pretty well-off (but no big house), and it would still be a serious hit, probably close to 15-20% of our combined monthly income, depending on what figure you use.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

1) sure, if you buy an iPod every month.

2) completely unrealistic. Many people work in areas that don't have health insurance. Mostly because assholes like you wan't buy a service from someone if it's a dollar more, so the service industry pays shit. Also, the more people there are that can do your job, the less power you have to dictate terms.

3) What the government provides in pretty slim.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[JobyOne]

Sounds like a recipe for lots of people *needing* catastrophic health insurance.

The fucking demented thing about our system is that we could easily make it cheaper overall, just by paying more for routine health maintenance and checkups.

For example, my girlfriend had an impacted wisdom tooth, but her (free, provided by our college to poor people) coverage wouldn't cover the extraction until it got infected enough to warrant an emergency extraction. Luckily we could afford to pay out of pocket for it, but a lot of people they cover couldn't. So instead of covering a $300 15 minute scheduled surgery now, this insurer *chose* that they would rather cover a multi-thousand dollar emergency surgery at some indeterminate future date. A lot of our health care is structured to make these retarded sorts of choices, and it's fucking stupid.

She also has a cyst on her scalp that they won't cover - again - until it gets infected and the cost of dealing with it doubles (or more). WTF is wrong with us?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[geekoid]

Haha, your own posts explain exactly why we need Universal Health Care. And I don't even think you see it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Duradin]

"This causes people who get the smallest sniffle to run to the doctor because, oh my god, surely I cannot survive a few days with a minor cold!"

You should ask Jim Henson about that.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[rmstar]

That's what capitalistic medicine produces - a system where you can never be sick.

That is exactly right. I haven't seen it modelled and discussed in detail, but it is clear that an insurance system where risk is completely known must become a pay-for-yourself system. Since having an edge in risk management is good for an insurance company, that's where competition leads them.

An adequate system is one where everybody is accepted regardless, and then the collective costs are split according to some method. I.e what libertarians call 'communism'.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[cjb658]

8) Buy your own insurance. Depending on your age and medical history, this can be had for as low as $100 per month. I've done this when I was "between jobs" and the coverage was pretty good.

Although if you have a bad medical history, such as my cousin that had cancer, expect your coverage to be in the $1000-2000 per month range.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[erroneus]

You read me correctly then. There is facetiousness in the first part -- showing why and how the things that are currently accepted by others would not and should not be accepted when white people do it. And, of course, when other people do it, it is ALSO wrong and racist.

And the rest of it? Instead of calling me racist, prove that I'm wrong. It's a bad idea to put a label on it and then say the label means wrong. That practice by itself is how "racism is wrong."

The fact is, it is quite observable that white males are discriminated against when it comes to public benefits. We use them less, but there are times when we need them too and when we don't get them, you can bet we will be bitter about it. As for the other side of the situation? That's statistically obvious as well.

At this time and in this world, every white male in the US is given the message that we must feel guilt and shame for things we have and things we have achieved and especially for the things others don't have and haven't achieved. And it doesn't matter how low the bar has been placed, what benefits are gifted or how many passes granted -- achievement rates have not changed significantly. Opportunity isn't the problem.

And I have to say when I learned that "minority status" in a school is determined based on enrollment status, I was excited because I knew I would qualify as a minority at the school I was attending. And I was literally stone-walled by the registrar's office when I told them I wanted the stats so I could apply for minority scholarships and grants.

The problem is very real and very serious. Racism will stop when race is not longer officially recognized for ANY reason whether it is to "reverse discrimination" or not.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[canajin56]

Same with Canada, sort of. Our distances and speeds are in KM, our food is sold by the gram, but we measure ourselves in feet and weight ourselves in pounds. I have no idea how many meters I am. More than 1, less than 2, that's as good as you'll get if I don't have a calculator. Fluids are all in l/ml though, even beer. Sure, you can order a pint, and the glass is a pint glass, but everybody I know just asks for a glass (OK, to be honest, everybody I know just asks for a pitcher). At the liquor store, some cans say 473 ml (American pint, 2 imperial cups), some say 500 (metric pints), some say 568 (Imperial Pint), but they're all pint cans. Whether they are filled to the exact ml amount they claim on the side is something I've never been bothered to test. And I have no idea what a temperature in Fahrenheit feels like, except that over 90 is somewhere between "hot" and "damn hot" and under 60 is "no longer teeshirt weather."

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Schadrach]

Clearly his opening was being facetious, you know by suggesting doing precisely what other "minorities" have done.

Personally, I'm all for equality. Equality however is *not* giving explicit benefits to people for being a racial minority or female.

I find discussions of the gender wage gap especially interesting. Currently women are paid ~2% less than men in terms of hourly pay rate once you remove all the variables other than gender (meaning persons of similar educational background in the same general geographic region in a similar industry fulfilling similar roles with a similar work history). I wouldn't be surprised if that is accountable due to things like differences in bargaining approaches, and you know, the error bars on those numbers.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Duradin]

When did iPods get data plans?

iPod != iPhone.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[NMerriam]

LOL. Your plan for health care reform in America is very straightforward, I'll give you that!

1) Be born to middle class or upper class parents. if your parents don't have insurance, you should have picked a wealthier vagina.
2) Get a job from a company that provides excellent health care. If you are ever fired, laid off, or outsourced, kill yourself. Ignore the fact that fewer companies provide health insurance these days, and that major employers like Wal*Mart will be sure to schedule your work hours so that you never qualify.
3) When you are old, the government will suddenly become an acceptable solution. But not before then, because if you're taking care of old people it's compassion. Taking care of young people is communism.

This story is clearly a troll, thank you for pointing it out. The man obviously has health insurance, as you have so aptly proven -- everyone in America does! He must be wanting to go to jail for the lulz.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Rynor]

America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the motherfucking day yeah!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[JobyOne]

So if you get cancer and are lucky enough to run up a mere $500,000 bill you'd only be on the hook for $108,000? Yeah, that's fucking spectacular health care coverage right there.

Are you slow?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[cpt kangarooski]

They would be obligated to get rid of the monarchy, though; the federal constitution requires that all states have a republican form of government, iirc.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[howardd21]

To not have federal level health care is the most stupid and expensive way to have healthcare.

Yep; We should also have federal supplied internet service; it is way too costly to have multiple providers with disparate systems, I don't want to pay for that. Europe is kicking or butts at that.

Oh yea, and home loans. Big banks were the reason we are in this mess with their risky investments, the government needs to just make my mortgage payments for me. I am too small to fail.

Wait, and let's also do federally supplied college. The only way we can compete is if we all have a good education, and we all know the cost increase has exceeded inflation. Who can afford this most basic of necessities?

I get hungry, A lot. It would be an advantage to all of us if the federal govt supplied breakfast. I want oatmeal. Every morning. And I want Wilfred Brimley to spoon feed it to me.

And dang it, the world is stressful. Federally supplied massages should be the right of EVERY CITIZEN, illegal or not. Stress is a known contributor to health issues and lost worker productivity. We cannot afford not to have federally supplied massages. I bet Weiner gets them, why shouldn't I, with all me stress over having to get out of bed to let Wilfred Brimly in the house?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Mongoose Disciple]

Your sarcasm detector isn't broken. That's not considered expensive here.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[madhatter256]

It happens a lot in the US. People who've been in jail for a long time get used to it. Three meals a day, a bed. It is a lot like living in a good homeless shelter with a shower and clean clothes, there's just the occasional riot and shanking and raping, but that's everywhere in the US, too.

People get so used to it, that when they are put back on the street they have no where to go, no posessions, no nothing. Sure they have programs to let ex-cons re-enter the society, but even they are limited in space and limited funding and don't pick up people who did hard time. Living outside of prison usually ends up being worse than being inside, so they often do crimes to get back in.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DeciDigi]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - or have you never heard that old one? We could reduce our national health bill greatly if people had easy access to affordable preventative care, rather than relying on ERs and Urgent Care.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[uncqual]

I had heard about the UK health care system of course but have never experienced it first hand.

I was there quite some years ago on a business trip and talking to what must have been a middle class (based on her position - albeit, maybe she had wealth from other sources than her own job) employee of the company hosting us. She mentioned she was going to be out of the office for a couple weeks due to a non-emergency but medically necessary surgery (I think I know what the procedure was and it would have been "routine" in any decent US hospital but fairly invasive so that would probably increase the risk of complications). In response I made some comment about "Well, at least you folks don't have to pay anything directly for such care". She gave me a look of horror as she stammered and explained that of course she wasn't going to use the public health care system (I think she said she maintained private insurance of some sort). She made it quite clear that anyone who could afford to and cared about quality of care would avoid the government system for anything but very simple low risk things.

Question for UK residents... Is it still, or was it ever, common for middle class folks to pay extra to avoid the government health care system?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hobo sapiens]

I do, and I have what people would consider "good" insurance and a great job. I have never ever been unemployed since I was 14 years old.

I am far from happy with my insurance.

There is so much bureaucracy to deal with. I know that government run healthcare would still suffer from this, obviously. But privatized healthcare has this same bureaucracy but it is coupled with greed. Insurance companies have an interest in making it difficult for you to get the coverage you need, because every dollar they can get you to pay out of pocket is more for the bottom line. These insurance use fabian tactics and diffusion of responsibility to get out of taking care of you. If you want to spend an entire day on the phone or writing letters, you can sometimes get somewhere. But who has that much time to dedicate to making the insurance company do what you are PAYING THEM to do? When I go to work, I do the job I am paid to do. Insurance companies have to be wrestled with to get them to cover your expenses properly. I guess since I cannot fire them (they have a monopoly after all) I just have to suck it up.

My wife had some health problems and needed a surgery. Well, long story short, despite the fact I have insurance, I ended up with a $2000 bill I had to pay off. And at my current job, I find that if I ever need to take my children to the doctor, the insurance company always finds ways out of covering everything, so I always get stuck with bills. Because I don't believe in being dishonest I pay the bills off. I could probably use some shady means to get out of paying them, but that would make me just like the politicians and corporations I hate so much.

It makes me angry to think that people think this system is ok. Those people come off as either naive (because they haven't really ever had to use insurance or are just very young), evil (because they stand to profit from the current situation at everyone's expense), or just plain dumb (because they just fall for the insurance companies' propaganda).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[JWSmythe]

    There was probably more evidence to gather regarding the kiddy porn case. They'd have to carefully track down everything relating to the case. I'd assume that the defendant was pleading "not guilty", which will stretch out the time required. There's a chance of unidentified victims, so they'd have to follow down every lead to make sure the case was tried appropriately.

    This case is a lot simpler. He *wants* to go to jail, so he'll plead guilty. The evidence will consist of the physical evidence from the scene, and the witness statements. That would most likely be wrapped up in a nice package with a bow for the courts in a few days.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

6) Join the military. Very good healthcare. But this could involve getting shot at.

Keep in mind that you need to do this before you get sick. The military is not in the habit of hiring less than able bodies if they can get away with it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[StikyPad]

Mexico doesn't necessarily need (or, arguably, already has) universal health care because they subsidize the shit out of the medical industry. It's an open secret that Mexico is the place to get your healthcare if you live in SoCal and you're paying out of pocket, and many of the doctors are trained in the US to boot. Are the best doctors in Mexico as good as the best doctors in the US? Probably not. But if you have the opportunity to see the best doctors in the US, then you almost definitely aren't worried about saving a few hundred/thousand dollars. For everyone else, Mexico's healthcare is the same trial and error, second opinion game that you play in the US until you find a doctor you trust, only you don't have to take out a second mortgage and/or file for bankruptcy just to get chemo.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RogerWilco]

Sorry, but a lot of developed countries pay a lot less for their universal health care then the USA, per capita. Sure it means that medical specialists might earn a little less. They're not going to earn millions, most people in the semi-public sector are limited to the amount the Prime Minister earns, which is about 250,000 euro. Still pretty decent in my view.

Go look up the numbers http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
United States: $4,631.00 per capita
Netherlands: $2,246.00 per capita

The Dutch government has defined a "standard healthcare package", which all insurance companies must cover for a fixed amount (just over 1000 euro a year). They can compete on service and extra options. They also can't refuse you the standard package, so anyone can get this basic set of healthcare and it's mandatory to be insured. Only people like the homeless aren't insured, jobless people and those on minimum wages are helped by the government to pay for their insurance.
And for what's covered: Currently the discussion is if support for giving up smoking should be covered. That should give you an idea.
There's optional extra packages for things like modifications in the home, electric wheelchairs, TV and newspapers at your bedside in the hospital.

We also struggle with rising costs for medical care, but as you can see, we're in a much better place than the USA which pays about twice as much.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

I work in health care, in a surgery department. I see insurance info all the time. Self-insured isn't an uncommon designation.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Roduku]

He might not be shot, but it wouldn't surprise me if he were tasered and/or severely beaten. Off camera, of course.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

I grew up in a farming community and knew a ton of hispanics, illegal and legal. All of my respectable (read, ones I would trust to watch my kids if I had any; or turn my back on in my house) hispanic friends looked down on illegals because they gave the entire hispanic community a bad rap. Even when if it was their uncle jose.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

No longer using any private healthcare here. NHS is fine, thanks. And if the Tories and their Thatcherite New Labour spawn manage to destroy the NHS, I'll move elsewhere. And if the interests served by destroying state healthcare systems manage to create a world without a decent national health service anywhere, the world will no longer be of interest to me and I shall welcome death from whatever condition befalls me.

Incidentally, last time I was an NHS in-patient it was awful not having private coverage. As a vegan my choice of food was restricted, while the private wing down the hall had a wonderfully choice-filled menu. Oh wait, no, the kind nurse just wandered into the private wing and took some food from there for me. But then there was the problem that the private patients had cleaner operating tables and an altogether better class of doctor. Oh wait, no, the same doctors were operating on everyone to the same standards.

BUPA can offer you reduced waiting times on some things and an altogether more hotel-like experience wherever you're staying the night. It may make you feel like you're getting better treatment because the part that really matters happens while you're under anaesthetic. Frankly, you'd be better off staying in the NHS ward and using the money you've saved on a hotel to rest up a couple of days before returning home.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Shados]

I don't know about the UK, but in Canada that is becoming more and more common. Not everything even CAN be done in the private sector, but anything minor (vaccination, routine exams, etc) can, and in my case, it means I can get an appointment same week, while my "official" family doctor normally has a 3-5 months wait list and i don't have enough time with him to ask questions.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

I read an article a while back about perceptions of discrimination in the work place. It was an equal number (can't remember how many) of professional black guys and white guys, and the general consensus was that there is more discrimination against whites nowadays than blacks. What was surprising is that more of the black guys admitted it than the white guys.
Its got to be pretty bad when a black guy will admit they have it better off legally than white guys.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jstlook]

Yep, those two constraints "must work for the company longer than 6 months, and work more than 30 hours per week" exclude the majority. Looking at Walmart employees (I'm using 2001 data available on google), there were 930770 employees, and 476813 full-time employees who worked over 45 weeks in the year.

Admittedly, the same study by Richard Drogin says "Average earnings comparisons are restricted to year-end active employees with full-time status who worked over 45 weeks in the year. Approximately 85% of Wal-Mart workforce is full-time."

To me, it suggests that while 85% might work more than 30 hours a week, only 476/931= 51% of those are eligible for benefits because they've worked long enough to qualify. To be fair, that's a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on numbers

Speaking of small businesses: don't ever count on getting insurance if you work for a small business. Insurance companies can charge whatever they want to a small business - which means that if someone gets seriously sick (multi-million issue), the insurance company can (and will) hike the insurance rates of that business to compensate their lost income. There's no upper limit on what they can charge in this circumstance.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[nschubach]

"No, I'm sorry store owner! The government told me to stay right here and I have paperwork for it!"

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[schlachter]

Young and stupid that is. You are very very naive. Being healthy is not always about taking care of yourself. Some things are beyond your control.

I work for a large well respected company that prides themselves on their benefits, and for my good (PPO) health insurance, my premium alone is $150/month, and yes I'm young without kids as well. Actual insurance cost is $600/month. My company pays the additional $450/month. If I had kids and a family plan, it would cost me around $400-500/month and my company would pay the extra $1,500/month or so. And shit, in addition to my premiums, I'd pay another $10K/yr or more out of pocket to providers because my insurance didn't cover it.

My total medical expenses are routinely $5K/yr including premiums and that's with good insurance heavily subsidized by my employer

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[mbkennel]

"Bullshit. They are absolutely fucking idiots. Illegals come into this country, frequently to get health care and to vote in our elections. Its done every day. If you're a repeat offender, they keep you in jail and you do receive decent to good health care.

And as its unpopular to actually verify citizenship in border states for elections, millions of illegals vote every year."

Illegals almost never vote in elections. You do have to be registered, and illegal immigrants want to stay off any government records.

Medcaid, sure. Here it is also against the rules for illegals to get it as well, but the hospitals are very motivated by $$$ to bill as much as they possibly can and so intentionally never check. If you're illegal and very poor you'll get better medical care and with much less out of pocket than most people until they're upper-middle class with strong benefits in a large company or government.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Is that why so many political leaders from around the world come to the US for treatment? A few months ago there was a story about a king from the middle east who came to New York and had an entire wing of the hosptial dedicated to him. For security reasons of course.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fahrbot-bot]

Here are the only ways to get healthcare in the U.S.: [1-7]

8. Actually, you can buy also individual coverage that can be less expensive than an employer-sponsored health plan, if you're currently healthy w/no pre-existing conditions. However... (and this is from an insurance agent) While insurance companies are prohibited from raising rates on an individual within a plan, they can raise the rates on the entire plan, or in some cases, groups of people within a plan. What ends up happening is that healthy people then leave that plan for something less expensive, while the remaining participants, who cannot get new insurance due to illness or now pre-existing conditions, are left paying ever increasing rates. Furthermore, insurance companies often practice rescission (unethically) to try and drop "expensive" people.

These things (generally) cannot happen with an employee-sponsored health plan, as they are required to cover anyone at the company. And it's also these sort of practices and situations that the Affordable Health Care Act is suppose to address (like it or not) for all individuals.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

Here's what he needs to do: when he's at his sentencing hearing, and they sentence him to house arrest, he needs to grab a pen, go over to the DA/prosecuting attorney, and stab him with it. Take out his eyes if possible (he's a lawyer, he deserves it). Then put his hands up and say "send me to prison!"

There's no way they can avoid sending him to prison after brutally maiming a lawyer (since hurting a lawyer gets you the same penalty as hurting a human, even though lawyers aren't human).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[spiffmastercow]

Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the U.S. population has health care? Do you have health care?

Let's disect what you originally said (emphasis mine):

This whole article is a troll. Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.

This is very different from "having health care". I do, as a matter of fact, have health care. I also deliberately took a job that paid about half of what I could be making so that I could have affordable, continuous health coverage for my family. If we had a socialized health care system like the rest of the developed world, I could rake in the money as a freelance developer/consultant. But because I cannot afford the health care options for this, I must instead work as an employee.

Here's a little known fact: public health care is the *friend* of small business, and the *enemy* of big business. If we could all go out on our own and make a living without worrying about health care, the big corps would have one less thing to hold over our heads.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Ding, we have a winner.

Before health costs skyrocketed, people went to the doctors office for a broken arm or stitches. Now they go to the ER.

Even now, a visit to a doctors office for illness or preventative care is only around $150, or about the same as taking your cat to the vet or car to the mechanic. The prescription antibiotics cash cost is probably less than the insurance copay.

Fluoride treatment at the dentist costs $35 and most people skip it because it's not covered by their policy. I'm really surprised people don't expect their car insurance to pay for oil changes.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Ya, I've never seen signs urging people to get a routine mammogram or colonoscopy. It's always telling them to wait on it for a few years because its not a big deal yet.
Seriously, unless you've worked in a health care setting and know what its like, your just talking out your ass. Every industry has staff that handles paperwork.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Lol. I meant iPhone. They all look the same to me.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hesaigo999ca]

The problem is that society should provide more help for these people.
You could argue "why? they should help themselves"...

Well let's say that you get mugged and complain about it, you get told, "deal with it" or "help yourself", and other assenine things like that....you would be looking for other ways to protect yourself, right....
but the person that mugged you , got enough cash to get a bed for the night at the local mission....that could be them "helping themselves"...

By offering more support for those that are like this man, you would be helping double-whammy style, no?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[characterZer0]

It is about 17% of my take-home. It is a good use of that 17%.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Which may still be worth the healthcare. Of course the police would get away with it, but that is the normal state of police in the USA.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Breaking news. You are more likely to get sick and die as you get older. More at 11.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShooterNeo]

That last part isn't always true. Allowing illnesses to become emergencies ends up with patients dying, which is cheaper in the long run. If a person actually has a lifestyle in line with the 'ideal' healthy lifestyle, with a low body weight and a low stress lifestyle with lots of fruits and vegetables and so on they live longer on average. So long, that when they finally do get ill, it's some extremely expensive thing to treat like metastatic cancer or dementia that always eventually results in death.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[scot4875]

Is that what the GP implied? No. If you're going to respond, respond to the fucking point. Don't be deliberately dense and dodge the issue like a tool.

Many, many people are unhappy with their health care. Something like 70% of the entire US population supported health care reform back in June 2009 before the "death panel" soundbites. If you can honestly say that every person you know is happy with their health care, that means you know a very narrow range of people. But most likely, you're just full of shit.

--Jeremy

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[erice]

Paying for yourself not practical? I don't smoke and I'm not overweight, and I pay $150/mo for full coverage. If I stay in the hospital, I'm never on the hook for more than $1500; my insurance pays the rest. Granted I am single and young, but I'm not exactly going bankrupt here. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy it can be a a huge burden, but if you can't afford that then it pays to not have kids and just take care of yourself.

Your age has as a lot to do with it. I pay about the same as you but my deductible is $5000 despite the fact that I've never smoked and am probably in better shape than you. The catch is that I'm 42. The really scary part is the trend. Nine years ago, I paid $45/month for a $1000 deductible (may even have been $500). Even catastrophic only insurance for the very healthy may soon be unaffordable.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[StikyPad]

The expensive part about family healthcare isn't so much the children, but the parents. Children are very cheap to insure relatively speaking, and in many states there are state-run programs as a safety net for children.

If you're 18-24 right now, your policy may be low, but by the time you're 40 your premium will more than double for the same coverage, and that's just using current rates. It doesn't help things any that healthcare costs in the US are vastly outpacing both the CPI and the GDP -- and have been since 1970 -- so odds are you'll double your costs in inflation-adjusted dollars well before you're 40; closer to 10 about years from now. It may seem like a long way off, but it's like parents always say, the years are gone before you know it.

So... the choices are to keep pretending it's not a problem and inherit an even bigger problem when you're the age of your parents, or else start working to fix things now and hope you never have to deal with it in the future.

And I'm not speaking to you specifically, but more broadly to young people who think this isn't their problem.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

Here in the UK, Cameron (like Reagan's mini-me Thatcher and various oddly-admired gentlemen all the way back to half-American Churchill) is trying his best to turn us into the 51st state.

Why do you guys keep electing these people to be your leaders then? I've never heard Britons speak highly of their US-ass-kissing PMs, yet they keep electing them. (Yes, I know PMs aren't directly elected like our Presidents, but they're elected by the legislature, right? You elect your legislators.)

The US does a few things very right -

Like what? And I mean things we do now, not things we did right decades ago. I can think of some things we do OK, or at least better than the UK (such as not generally throwing people in prison for defending themselves from violent home invaders, unless they live in Illinois or New Jersey), but I have a hard time thinking of anything we do these days that is "very right".

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

I call B.S. on that story.

Companies are required to provide workers comp.
He didn't have insurance, but couldn't he come up with $200 for the doc-in-a-box? I'll bet he's carrying around an iPhone and has a flat screen TV at home.
1 mile is too far to walk? There's no hope for this guy.

And if he's really that broke, the hospital will charge off the debt and he won't pay it anyways.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[AJH16]

Except the whole point is this guy isn't really a criminal, just desperate. He probably wouldn't hurt someone because he isn't morally bankrupt, otherwise he would have done more on the off chance he might not get caught.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[scot4875]

I paid my own way through college driving tow trucks and paid for my own health insurance.

This must have been a *long* time ago because there's practically no way you could do this today, or at any point in the last 15-20 years. Unless, of course, you worked that tow truck gig for a decade taking 1-2 classes per semester to finally get your degree.

--Jeremy

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Third world universal systems?
Try living in the EU or Canada for while.
The poorest American is left to die or rob banks if he gets a chronic condition. That does not happen in those other first-world nations.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TheCarp]

And that is "median".... so half are that less.

I make a good enough living to keep my wife and I in healthcare but, she wouldn't on her own. Many of my friends don't. I know people who see lss than 20k a year, some as low as 12k! A modest apartment in this area will cost more than half that just for rent, usually without utilities included.

All of these people, unless they have families that they can fall back on and have support them, are essentially an illness or accident away from homelessness. Could they/should they do more? Sure... who couldn't? However, at some point those arguments become ridiculous. These are not issues that are going to be solved by telling poor people to work more or get an education. Someone has to do the menial jobs.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sounds like like your practice must have the best prices in town, where can I find it?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[djdanlib]

If you're going to the hospital to ask them why you can only breathe through one nostril most of the time, yeah, you better have insurance for that. But for emergencies, in the USA:

[...] if the hospital is a "Participating Hospital", i.e., takes any government program funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, such as Medicare, and Medicaid, they must treat for emergency care or active labor regardless of the patients' ability to pay, citizenship, etc, and they must treat them like they would any other patient. This bill passed in 1986 and was called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) under COBRA. This effectively covers all hospitals, profit or non-profit since the hospitals can not make it without the patients under government health care programs. The exceptions are the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Veterans Affairs Hospitals, and Indian Health Service.

This will vary state to state, too, since states have amended to include additional rerquirements and define what services must be included.

Read more

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Officers have no control over how long it takes something to go to trial. Once an officer has issued a complaint (arrested someone) they are done. Further delay is caused by lawyers and judges.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's a terribly off-base distortion of what he said. That unemployed guy is the exception, not the rule, even today with ~20% effective unemployment. Focusing on the outliers rather than the common case is no way to make a rational argument.

There is nothing delusional about wanting to give the person with the most at risk - the patient - the most control over how the money for their care is spent. A system that makes that connection is good for everyone, even the unemployed guy who probably end up with something like a voucher instead of spending out of his empty pockets.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You confuse television doctors with reality.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[nschubach]

To not have federal level health care is the most stupid and expensive way to have healthcare.

I'm not sure I understand why the federal government is more efficient and/or intelligent than any other method... What makes the federal government more capable/cheaper/efficient than the ability for providers to compete and offer their insurance to anyone across the country instead of being limited by state?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Arkham]

Paying for yourself not practical? I don't smoke and I'm not overweight, and I pay $150/mo for full coverage. If I stay in the hospital, I'm never on the hook for more than $1500; my insurance pays the rest. Granted I am single and young, but I'm not exactly going bankrupt here. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy it can be a a huge burden, but if you can't afford that then it pays to not have kids and just take care of yourself.

I'm married with kids, 37 years old, and a non-smoker. I've never had surgery or any serious medical claim, nor has anyone in my family.

My insurance is roughly $14,000 per year, if you count what my employer pays, and the coverage isn't even that good. Tell me how that's reasonable. The only reason to have insurance anymore is to avoid catastrophic illness, to be honest, and if you do have that your insurance company will probably just try to drop you anyway. It's the most corrupt, immoral, evil institution in the business world.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nick Ives]

The way your criminal justice system works is that the state has to be ready to bring a case the moment you get indicted. The defendant can drag the process out for as long as they like, however.

Everyone in jail has to have a trial date but by and large, those dates are formalities. If you're in jail awaiting trial for murder it's in your best interests to delay for years just so that when you finally go to trial, your attorney can bamboozle any witnesses and introduce reasonable doubt.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

No that is because the USA has the best medical care if you can afford it. If you are a Sheik that is one way to afford it, for most NHS would be a huge improvement.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Vegeta99]

I smoke, and I'm certainly not overweight. However, BC/BS has sent both me and my father letters, informing us that we are overweight. We both have a BMI around 25.5, the measure that they use to determine rates and whether or not you are overweight.

We both have under 10% body fat.

Doesn't fuckin' matter if you're healthy or not, they'll figure out a way to gouge ya.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

either priced into the stratosphere due to adverse selection and/or because insurance companies exit that market.

So no change for most then?
Individual prices are already obscene and many can't get anything.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[omfgnosis]

Telling doctors that you are paying in cash, out of pocket, will often reduce your costs as well.

Whut. Insurance companies negotiate prices, and have a lot of leverage when doing so. Out-of-pocket patients always pay full price, in my experience.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[itsenrique]

I call BULL fucking SHIT. Some reference to medicaid discriminating against whites please? I'm not saying its impossible, but I have a hard time believing it. And yeah its an anecdote to your anecdote, illegals do put a drain on the system like everyone else BUT: I personally knew 3 illegals who paid FULL TAXES (no dependent claiming, no whizbang math, just pay to AVOID an audit). They also did not get food stamps, as for job training assistance, I highly doubt it. If they did that means we need it for everyone, not just illegals. Consider this, to get food stamps, medicaid, etc, you need a valid address, soc sec. Some illegals have fake papers (modified SS card of the dead/birth cert, generally I hear) but those fake papers generate a trail if you have valid employment. These guys that are over here for years (yeah, sending a lot of money back home generally), know they can be audited, and thus pay taxes. At least thats how its been explained to me by more than one or two folks. So show me the evidence of illegals getting all these benefits (that a sizeable portion do) or STFU. Because I like cheap food, and I don't really see immigrants taking any honestly 'good jobs' from us except some in contracting (which has more to do with how lax code and license stuff is in your state, how steep penalties are for using unlicensed illegal workers). Where I live they mostly pick fucking strawberries at piecemeal wages that no citizens would accept because they cannot work fast enough in the heat to make it worth their (or the farmers) while. Also they (or us citizens too) are exposed to a LOT of pesticides and other hazards for this low pay. I know your a troll, and I was going to respond anonymously, but fuck it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

And with such industrious countries as Liberia & Myanmar that aren't on Metric yet.

The metric stuff is vastly overrated.

Go into any US factory or company that does engineering design, such as the US automakers, and see if they're still using feet and inches. They're not; everything is done in metric now (unless they need to provide specifications to consumers, like the volume of the fuel tank in gallons). Go into any science lab and see if they're still using fluid ounces and gallons, or if they've switched to liters. Go to any hospital in the US and see if they give you IVs and injections in fl.oz. or pints or in mL, or if they give you medication doses in ounces or milligrams.

There's only two places I can think of where US units are still being used: 1) anything that's used directly by uneducated consumers: road mile markers, speed limits, milk jugs, etc. 2) the defense industry: US warships, for instance, still use all US units. But commercial/civilian ships do not.

Just because Joe Blow and Jane Sixpack are still counting distances in miles as they drive to the WWF Smackdown or tractor pull doesn't mean much. And for simple uses like this, it really doesn't matter. You're not going to get any improvement in efficiency by switching to metric by having roadsigns counting in km instead of miles (in fact, it'll be more wasteful since kilometers are more closely spaced, so you'll need more of those kilometer marker signs than you would mile markers). SI units are really useful when you're doing scientific or engineering work, and that's why nearly all sci/eng work in the USA is already done in metric.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

That deal is so good for the USA he is almost surely part of a group plan. Normal prices for a 20 something with those sorts of deductibles are regularly twice that. If you have any sort of chronic condition expect it to be 6 to 10 times that, if you can get care at all.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[jopsen]

And if you catch cancer how long time will it be before your insurance gets rid of you?
I know that would take a while before I loose my citizenship :)

but it's not just about the money and safety, it's also about helping out those who are less fortunate than me. And not having to listen to horrible stories like this...

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[amRadioHed]

He never had the pleasure of seeing the modern Republican party in action.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[erroneus]

Not surprising in the slightest. What you should be comparing is professional white guys and black guys in prison. From that comparison, you will see more clearly the picture that we are intended to see, not the reality you are indicating.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Are you kidding? Hospitals already massively inflate the cost of medical services to provide their own form of "insurance" -- make the people who can pay, pay and pay dearly.

I kid you not!

I don't see your point. If your commenting on the blogger's second hand account, I think it leaves out quite a few details. Also the blogger assumes that hospitals operate solely for good will. Even the non-profit hospitals have to pay the salaries of the doctors, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, accountants, clerical workers, and security to name a few. They also have utilities and malpractice insurance. They have a growing amount of shrinkage from patients that are not able to pay their bill. They have to make up for these expenses and they do it with higher costs. They are also limited by how much the insurance network allows them to bill their providers and pretty much have to stay in line with the accepted "Usual and Customary Charges" for medical care in the region. Hospitals do not fully recover their expenses.

So if your point is that medical care at the hospital is expensive and will only get worse then I completely agree.

However if your point is that the unfunded mandate that is EMTALA is somehow justified because hospitals are able to recoup their costs then you are mistaken. As I said before, the hospitals do not fully recover their costs from emergency care. Even if they did, eventually the cost structure will reach a tipping point where absolutely no one will be able to afford any care from the hospital and hospitals will close.

I find it enlightening that people who are against universal health care always point to EMTALA requiring hospitals to provide care despite the ability to pay. This literally translates to "I want a social health care safety net but I want someone else to pay for it." These same people scream bloody murder when the government passes an unfunded mandate that affects their or their employer's income.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[pete.com]

- or - walk in to an ER... You will be treated and walk way without paying

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[amRadioHed]

Two questions. First, are you just assuming this to be the case or is it a documented fact? Second, does it really make you feel good to compare the US health care system to what's available in the poorest nations on earth?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[itsenrique]

In my zip code(33605, check on wikipedia), the average income is 10,500. I don't know what two cars, big house, and cable your dreaming of. Sounds like television for most Americans, not reality. A 'good job' for a lot of people now forced out of their primary career sector (many, many people) is making 27-35K i my geographic area (and I'm talking family age, not fresh out of college). Health care is just too expensive. Weather we pay for it directly or indirectly there is no getting around this fact. Lobbyists would love for us to just pay EVEN MORE, as long as their bosses quarterlies keep going up. Tell me why its not so expensive in comparable western nations?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[peragrin]

60 million american's cant afford healthcare one out of every six people you see get nothing for healthcare. Try it sometime get a quote for healthcare without a coroporate backer(employer) and compare it to what you currently pay. I can say for a fact it will be at least several times the amount.

Now consider that the more money you have this less you pay for premimums, the more coverage you get, the lower deductables and copays etc.

My car has better cheaper insurance than i do. My car gets totaled insurance money can get a down payment on a new car if i get seriously hurt i get told i am not covered and should just die or live with it. Now tell me which one is the free market working for again?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ctid]

Question for UK residents... Is it still, or was it ever, common for middle class folks to pay extra to avoid the government health care system?

"Avoid" is the wrong word. Some companies include private health insurance as part of the "package" they pay you. I would suggest that most companies who offer this and most people who take out private health insurance use private health care as a way of avoiding queues. (If you want a routine procedure on the NHS, you may have to wait a while). Lots of people choose private health care because private hospitals tend to be in better condition and often have individual rooms rather than wards.

I had an aunt who worked in the NHS. She said that for a very common operation it wouldn't make much difference if you went for NHS or private treatment. But for anything rare, she would recommend NHS every time, because the doctors would see it more often and therefore have more experience than in private practice. I felt that that was a simplification when she told me that (because some doctors/consultants do both) but I didn't pursue it at the time.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

11 years ago, 23 credit hours per semester, 40+ hours per week driving wreckers at night. My wife was on the streets at 17 and waited tables at a buffet to put herself through a masters degree program. We both paid our own health insurance. It's hard work.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fyngyrz]

He *wants* to go to jail, so he'll plead guilty

I don't think so. He's already in jail. The key issue is, he wants to stay in jail, so he'll plead not guilty, forcing them to schedule him for trial. Then he'll use every method he can to delay the trial, and to blow it up as large as possible, forcing it out of the small initial slot in the judge's calender. When they offer him a plea (and they will), he'll just make it clear that the plea needs to include jail time of the desired length, otherwise, it'll be a full-on trial. See, since he wants jail time, he's in the stronger bargaining position here. The only thing they can threaten him with if he won't take the plea is... jail time.

Since the only cost to the judge pays is trial time -- he doesn't bear the cost for incarceration or care -- the judge will likely negotiate the plea in order to clear the calender, his only significant concern. The prosecutor gets another notch on the old gunbelt, the judge gets a clear calender, the "criminal" gets his jailtime (and likely, some aspirin... I don't think this is a great plan on his part) and there you go.

Welcome to the US legal system.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

The places in UK industry where metric standardisation is economically important have all long since changed fully, so people using antiquated units for their weight is hardly doing that much harm

It's exactly the same here in the USA. Who cares what units someone uses for measuring their weight, or distances between cities, or the weather? It doesn't matter; whatever you're used to is the best.

The thing that metric units are better at is unit conversion. Calculating how much energy is in a sample measured to be at a certain volume and at a certain temperature is easier when all the units are SI. However, how often do you ever convert units? More importantly, how often does Joe Sixpack, who's never been to college, convert units? Never. That's why it doesn't matter if he counts the distance between his house and the tractor pull in miles or kilometers. Each one is arbitrary, and it doesn't matter which one he uses, as long as he's familiar and comfortable with it, the road signs are marked that way, and his odometer/GPS uses that unit.

For all the places where metric units really are more useful (i.e., scientific and engineering institutions, the healthcare field), the USA converted to metric long ago. And kids educated in science and engineering in college can easily do either.

Seriously, how does it benefit society if your local pub serves beer in half-liters instead of pints? That's not more efficient, it's 3 times as many syllables you have to speak to order less beer! This is just change for change's sake.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gearsmithy]

8) Purchase (GASP!) an individual health insurance plan (Yes, that is possible and in many cases affordable).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[amRadioHed]

What part of having a health care system that treats Kings and other foreign heads of state but does nothing for a large percentage of actual Americans do you think is a good thing?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

And I have no idea what a temperature in Fahrenheit feels like, except that over 90 is somewhere between "hot" and "damn hot" and under 60 is "no longer teeshirt weather."

This is the beauty of the Fahrenheit system: anything over 100 is "really fucking hot", anything under 0 is "really fucking cold". If the local weather is outside these extremes, it's really not fit for human habitation. Everything else can be measured easily on a scale between 1 and 99, without having to bother with fractions or decimals. The only extra thing to remember is that water freezes at 32, but it's quite common for the weather to be colder than this, so we reserve the negative numbers for extreme climates, instead of using them all the time like the Celsius-users do.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[s73v3r]

Wrong. Maybe in civil court, but in most cases, such a long wait would be a violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Av8rjoker]

I'm bipolar. No one will insure me and even if they will, it's laughably expensive. As always, no one will cover my medications for at least a year for some odd reason. At least the VA helps me out a little bit but anyone who has worked with the VA knows that it is a hassle (to say the least). When you make $23,000 a year working as an indefinite temp worker at one of the biggest tech companies in the world, insurance is just not possible.

Fuck the US "healthcare" system.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Coward]

"American health care is too expensive because of how it's paid for"

I had heart surgery a few years ago, and when it was all said and done, the total amount billed was around 481K. How much did I pay? Around 7.5K. And the insurance companies? About 69K. And everybody was happy! So basically, there was over 400K that just disappeared, but nobody cared! What burns me is that had I not had insurance, I would have had to come up with the full 481K, (well, actually, I would have died, because there's no way in HELL I could have even come close), but if they had quoted the 76.7K it eventually did cost, I could have second-mortgaged my house for it.

THAT is the problem with healthcare in the USA.

The solution? Everybody pays the same. Why not?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

Except a voucher is as worthless as the paper it's printed on for anyone with a preexisting condition, or who's in poor health, or who's over 30, etc. People without healthcare in the U.S. don't need freedom, they need healthcare. Giving someone a $50 a month voucher to get insurance, when no insurance company in the country will insure them, isn't helping them. It's just insulting them.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TooMuchToDo]

Because healthcare is definitely someplace where you pick a provider based on cost, instead of quality. Good luck with your HSA, I'll keep my fully employer paid for PPO (although, I'd take universal healthcare in the US; doctors in the US make 5x the average worker's salary, where as it's 3x outside of the US).

Also, I'd love to replace most doctors with expert systems like IBM's Watson.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[s73v3r]

And as its unpopular to actually verify citizenship in border states for elections, millions of illegals vote every year.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Tharsman]

This will sound horrible, but I have always had a "backup plan". When I was about 15 I said to my closest friends, should I ever find myself in such a dire condition that I find myself homeless, I'll walk into a post office and rob them without a mask. I'll take all the money I can and run away.

Once found I would pledge guilty and end in a federal jail for who knows how long. This is assuming I don't get shot at leaving the post office with a fake gun in hand.

I always found it a bit silly that we take better care of our criminals than we do of our homeless. Sure, some homeless refuse help and just want to get their next fix, but they are far from the majority. Those are just the ones that you will see most often due to their drug dependency.

As for the guy in this article, his biggest mistake was his honesty. He should had just given a note for the classic "give me everything you can fit in this envelope, 20s only" and leave. The cops would had found him within a few days, if not the same day, as long as he did not attempt to hide too hard. Keep his mouth close about his intentions, too. Pledge guilty, blame it on hunger, whatever, just not reveal the full plan.

Then again, this guy MAY gather sympathy and help due to his case getting nation-wide coverage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Sir_Sri]

Covering everyone seems to work pretty well everywhere else. Don't see why it wouldn't work in the US. Ever been a single 28 year old man living alone with a job, gotten cancer, twice, and in while you were on disability had your employer shut down (this was a 200+ employee outfit too)? Ya, those bums have no right to healthcare, you can work while you're on chemo, just keep a barf bag in your office. Or maybe you should be using that fat 900 dollar a month disability/unemployment cheque on eharmony to find yourself a wife with healthcare so you can be covered. What *right* does anyone have to anything? What right does a black person have to demand that a majority white country treat them equally? What right does anyone have to an education if their parents don't pay taxes? Stop leeching off the rest of us right? Get a clue, people have a right to not be exploited by their fellow citizens, and they have a right to not be faced with crippling disadvantage in life just because they were born black, or born poor, or got cancer or hit by a car. It is the point of organizing a society that we can take care of people and help them not just die horribly in the street. Now if you want to say 'if you smoke you shouldn't get healthcare' that's a very different problem than helping people be functioning members of society but who couldn't possibly pay to keep themselves alive without healthcare - hence, it is a form of insurance. Why, as an adult, should your parents specifically be expected to chip in for your healthcare? Maybe they're poor too. That notion of 'only look after your family and not your neighbour' is why in india people still have 8 fucking kids (including I will note my charming cousins, who are engineers, doctors, an army Major, and professors... ), because if you can't count on your neighbour to help you out, you don't want to roll the dice with just 2 or 3 kids, one of them might not chip in to support you when you get old or sick.

The US system in that regard is outright odd. The most expensive healthcare patients, those over 65, *are* covered by the government already. Most people who die are over 65, and most healthcare dollars are spent right before you die. As long as you live to 65, the government coughs up the money to pay for you, no matter what you've done to yourself before that point. And it covers people who are too poor (and generally the also expensive on healthcare for a lot of reasons) already. The marginal cost of adding coverage for the 16-65 year olds who aren't already covered is pretty low. That's also the most important group to protect, because if you can fix whatever is wrong with them, they can continue to be productive, and if you can prevent problems building up, they won't be so expensive when they hit 65. Overall it's just a poorly thought out or constructed system.

Other countries provide healtcare for the whole population for ~8% of GDP, france is up around 11. The combined government healthcare spending in the US is *already* about 7.5% (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php) using a GDP of 14.12 trillion. And that excludes defence department healtcare spending. Covering everyone, especially given who already *is* covered shouldn't be all that hard, or expensive overall. Yet your politicians like to make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gonzonista]

Drug costs are a big part of health care costs. A federal government can bargain costs much more efficiently than smaller entities.

There's a moral hazard with private health insurance. Governments have a vested interest in keeping you healthy so you can pay taxes. Private insurers have a vested interest in covering you until you are no longer healthy. This means that individuals with chronic conditions face increasing difficulty in getting coverage. Obamacare failed to address this issue correctly, likely resulting in higher costs in the future.

There are no easy answers to solving the health care issues in America but it is hard to argue against some sort of nationalization when you look at life expectancies and costs in countries where there is government subsidized health care.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

There's far too much bloat and graft in the system, and having the US government -so well known for it's fiscal efficiency(sarc)- pay for it isn't likely to fix that, if anything, it'll exacerbate it.

I'm not so sure. The problem with US government spending is that they waste it on a lot of stupid stuff, like the Department of Defense, foreign wars, poorly-designed welfare systems, etc.

I can think of one agency of the government that actually does a really good job fiscally, providing a good service at a low price: the US Post Office. There's no way I can send a 3-ounce package across the country with Fedex or UPS for $1.75, yet I do this all the time with USPS. Of course, some libertarian moron will probably chime in here and say they're not allowed to, but 1) that's BS, there's nothing keeping Fedex from dropping their prices on small parcels (my price quoted above is for a parcel, not a letter), 2) with privatization, there'd either be no delivery at all to rural areas, or it'd be insanely expensive. Of course, libertarians don't care much about farmers, or getting food...

The only problem with the USPS these days is too much interference by Congress, such as not allowing them to cut back on service days to save money and keep prices low, but the USPS in my mind is a good example of how a government agency can be successful when it's separated from politics and run as a separate, autonomous, but government-owned agency without a profit motive.

If healthcare were run the same way, cutting out the insurance companies, and being run as an autonomous government-owned company, I think it could provide good-quality service at a very good price for all citizens. Citizens who want top-quality service can always go to private doctors, just like they do in the UK, but for the rest of us, the total cost of healthcare nationally would be far, far less with care being much better than the average is now.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fyngyrz]

The DA and prosecutor haves no motive to discourage this. They get a conviction, it helps their stats. The stats are what they are concerned with, and very little else. Even if they *did* have a motive to discourage it, they have no tools available to them: all they can do is threaten... jailtime. That's what this fellow wants. So he wins.

The judge, on the other hand, is concerned with his calender -- and again, very little else. His goal is a plea bargain to clear the calender. He'll get it; the "criminal" has the upper hand here, because the normal threat "we'll jail you" is what the prisoner wants. So he's going to hold out until he gets what he wants; in order for the judge to clear the calender, he'll have to arrange for jailtime. That's how it'll go.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hylandr]

Welcome to the US legal health system.

FTFY.

- Dan.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[mdielmann]

If your aren't working, or have a family member who is, what right do you have to expect anything given to you? It's not practical to save everyone.

Yes, it's far more practical to have these people engage in criminal activity, live on the streets, or just slowly die knowing there's a place not far away where they could be saved if they had enough money.

First, that's a lovely world you live in. I'll take crappy Canadian healthcare over the "best money can buy" American system, any day.

Second, think of the social cost, known and unknown, that such a system entails. I think we're all fortunate that Stephen Hawking is British.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[jo_ham]

Because the economies of scale work to your advantage in a system that is essentially insurance. Even with the added "downside" of extra bureaucracy and inefficiency brought in by government (and that should obviously be minimised as much as possible) it is *still* cheaper to have universal healthcare compared to the way the US handles things. There is a reason that the per-capita GDP spending by the US on healthcare is *twice* what it is by the UK, and we have a pretty bloated system that needs trimming and reorgnisation.

The vast majority of the developed world noticed that it was a total no-brainer to provide universal healthcare for its citizens: not only is it cheaper (by a lot), it also results in healthier citizens across a broader spectrum of the population (ie, poor people too) - and healthy people are more productive. It also massively increases the uptake of preventative care, which is another factor in keeping costs down.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PoolOfThought]

I assume you're talking health INSURANCE. Not healthcare. Because anyone, legal us citizen or not, can receive healthcare at the ER.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

Of course, you could go your route of describing the situation andleave all all the reasonable ways that a non-rich / non-poor individual could go about getting insurance AND care. Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[FingerDemon]

I guess the only good thing about it for him, is that this is the first I have heard of doing such a serious crime with clearly inconsequential gain just for the jail health care. The public and even the authorities might actually have some sympathy with him for his plight. So, even if he gets essentially thrown "out" of jail, he might be able to make some money selling his story to the media. Of course that won't work for the next guy who does this and doesn't even make the news. That guy is just screwed.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[tbannist]

Oh I see. The sign on the wall overrules the $25 fee to see the doctor to arrange to have a colonoscopy and the requirement for the insurance company to approve it in advance (plus the deductible to get it done, plus however many additional $25 additional visits are required), and the threat that your coverage might be dropped because it looks like you might think something is wrong. Yeah, a sign will totally fix all of that. I always do everything I see on signs, no matter the actual costs.

Every industry has staff that handles paperwork, but I've heard from people who aught to know that the American medical field is one of the worst for it. You need to remember that the lower the ratio of doctors to paperwork pushers, the more expensive the medical system is. If an individual doctor needs to have a paperwork drone, then he has to change his clients more to cover the cost of the drone and, of course, the office space for the drone and the filling system to handle the claims and the claim forms.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[VJ42]

They would be obligated to get rid of the monarchy, though; the federal constitution requires that all states have a republican form of government, iirc.

Really? I always thought of her as the state governor...

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

I'm glad you have family, friends, and charitable organizations willing to foot the bill for your $50,000 surgery. But I suspect that's not typical.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. In December of 2008, I was laid off from a much needed job that provided me with full health coverage and was going to allow me to fund my way through my last year of school. I was unable to find full time work for almost a year and a half, having to settle for part-time gigs at Kroger and doing website maintenance for a non-profit, though I never really made half of what I made at my full time job. During this time both my wife and myself were each forced to go to the ER once, and on another occasion my wife had kidney stones and she decided she would suffer through the pain to avoid the medical costs. I stayed awake the whole night holding her while she cried and screamed.

So yeah, I do understand what people are going through, but that doesn't mean I support a system that treats symptoms of the real problem. I'm looking logically at the whole issue, rather than just what my needs are. It didn't matter that I was suffering, because I don't want a system that isn't going to fix things, just because it makes things better for me.

People like you see people suffering and want to treat that, but you fail that isn't the real problem. Why are the people suffering? Is it because we lack hospitals? For the most part no. Aside from a few dense areas, there are plenty of places to get care. Is our care lacking in quality? Absolutely not, we have some of the greatest facilities in the world. So then what is the real issue? It's cost. Healthcare costs too much. It makes it harder for people to afford care. It makes insurance more expensive and less obtainable. It makes it harder to provide care to those who can't afford it. It weighs the whole system down. So if you recognize this, you must realize that the place to fix healthcare is cost. Lowering the cost allows more families to afford coverage and makes it easier to pay for coverage to those who can't, either through government programs or charities.

All these other systems do is change who's paying for the coverage, and that isn't the answer. In Germany, the doctors pay for it out of their pockets. In Japan, the hospitals pay for it. In the UK,. the taxes pay for it, but everybody is still paying. If you want lower prices you have to have true competition and fluctuating prices. This is something our system completely lacks, which is why prices are so high. The government endorsed HMOs with the HMO act of 1973, and required all employers to carry an HMO, giving only tax breaks to employers for purchasing healthcare. This shifted the market to employer based HMOs, which eliminates true competition and fluctuating prices. You go to who your health care provider says to go to and you only worry about your copay. True competition rewards the providers that give the best value. This system rewards corporations with the biggest contracts. We need to lift the restrictions and encourage people to use things like HSAs which are significantly cheaper than HMOs and provide better care with more consumer options.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[jo_ham]

You're talking out of your arse.

I have lived in the UK (I'm British) and in the US. If you think the poorest American (or even a modestly paid American, say one working in retail for minimum wage) has anything *like* the quality of healthcare that is available to *everyone* in the UK then you are delusional.

Just because Glenn Beck told you that does not make it true.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

According to many of the posters here, all you need is a tax-free health savings account and all your problems will be solved. They're going to give you the freedom to help yourself.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

80% coverage afterwards?
So a $108k surgery costs you $28k?
So you can have insurance and still choose to die rather than get chemo, just so your wife can keep the house. What a wonderful policy.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

I suspect the UK wouldn't be too happy if U.S. refugees started flooding into UK hospitals. I suspect they would change the policy pretty quickly if that ever happened.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I'm not sure I understand why the federal government is more efficient and/or intelligent than any other method... What makes the federal government more capable/cheaper/efficient than the ability for providers to compete and offer their insurance to anyone across the country instead of being limited by state?

Free markets will work only when the consumer makes rational informed choices. It would work if everyone is paying for their own healthcare with their own money. Everyone thinks "this treatment costs X and the benefit is Y, do I want it?". This will drive down the cost and give you all the benefits of competitive marketplace.

What we have instead is NOT even, "I pay a fixed amount to some health insurance company. Then I get to the all-you-can-eat buffet of healthcare". First problem, everyone feels entitled to Lexus level care because they have paid the premium. Second most wont buy insurance till they are sick.

But what we have in USA is "your employer pays the insurance company to pay the doctor and the pharmacy to deliver healthcare". The ultimate consumer is not free to shop for the best health service. It is bundled with a even bigger issue employment. Once the consumer is constrained, the other party will exploit their advantage to the hilt. That is what going on right now. The insurance company's customer is not you. It is your employer. It will deliver just enough care, so that people don't quit en masse. That is all the service expected from them by your employer.

Remember two days ago there was a thread here about State government paying for tourism advertisements? Though most merchants would benefit by it they would/could not create a voluntary pool to do the advertising. Some free loaders will game the system by not contributing to the pool, figuring they will get the benefit anyway, why pay for it. The only way to fund it is through a tax. This is corporate welfare if the tax is on general public. If the tax is on the likely beneficiaries of the advertisement pool, it is a mandate to participate in a forced pool. Got it?

Now go back and show me what part of the current system in USA is really free market striving its best to deliver the best care at the lowest price to the ultimate customers?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

$950 is WAY out of the reach of most American families. And expect even that premium to go way higher if anyone in your family ever develops a chronic illness.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

That's probably because the self-insured never get to the point of having surgery (unless they're rich).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

The ER is not going to treat your chronic conditions. The ER is fine for a broken arm, but I can pay that out of pocket. The ER is not going to be great for pancreatic cancer though, and that is something very few could pay for out of pocket.

Go ask your Dr how cheap chemo is when you pay cash.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nethemas the Great]

Just one of the 50% of Americans with no concept of a future that might impact them the same way it impacts others.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[iserlohn]

BUPA is the worse of the the many private options in the UK. There are many other good options available (ie. SimplyHealth or Aviva) but BUPA I've never ever heard a good thing about.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[jo_ham]

By the person themselves - that's what he was saying. For the cost of the shitty insurance in the USA, the same money in Germany pays for coverage that costs thousands and thousands more in the US, and you get it partially refunded every quarter if you don;t use it.

That's because *everyone pays into the same pot so the cost goes down for everyone*. This is what the anti-universal healthcare people seem to miss (or deliberately ignore).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[FhnuZoag]

No, it's because the US is a democracy, and many Americans are fucking stupid.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Why don't you have insurance?

(Just curious.)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[flex941]

Oh, it's not efficient, not by long shot. But it's capable of providing somewhat decent healthcare to those who had nothing previously.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Please do link to this policy. Let's see what this kid gets for his $100/month.

For fun, assume he has one of the following conditions, diabetes, hyper/hyporthroidism, early onset arthritis, or has gone without medical care for more than 1 year before this.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

As I pointed out above, try that when you need surgery, treatment for a chronic illness, or any other treatment that isn't an immediate emergency.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[flex941]

you mean third-world?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Please do explain how we can make Chemo cheaper. That is non-critical and the ER will turn you away. Clearly we all have a lot to learn from you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Except a voucher is as worthless as the paper it's printed on for anyone with a preexisting condition

Yeah, I expected you to go down that path since it's the standard criticism to the Ryan voucher plan and nothing to do with what's under consideration here. This isn't about vouchers to purchase health insurance this is about a cash substitute that can only be used to purchase treatment.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RussellSHarris]

Actually, Walmart cashiers do get access to group health insurance. I have another relative that works as one. There are some criteria that have to be met though. (IIRC must work for the company longer than 6 months, and work more than 30 hours per week)

Right, which is why they simply won't LET you work any more than 29 hours per week if they don't want to have to pay for your health insurance. Isn't that a well-known fact? They simply won't schedule you the hours. You can't complain much either - enough of that and you're a troublemaker; they'll find a reason to get rid of you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

What early 20-something can afford that?
I sure could not. Even today if my company was not paying for it I would not have a data plan. I pay $15 for two lines and data after the company chips in. This is because we only have 500 minutes and 250 text messages between us. The company pays for the rest since they assume unlimited text messages and unlimited voice. We are considering getting rid of the text messages and only using google voice for that.

Most people are not as rich as you think.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Your choices:

1. Take the risk.

2. Buy the more comprehensive policy.

3. Keep the lower coverage and put the difference into a mutual fund. Over time, you'll have a lot more than $28k sitting there for when you need it.

You can make these decisions for yourself under our current system. People really should buy catastrophic illness insurance and invest the difference. Out of pocket routine care is cheap. Zero deductible is not.

Anybody who thinks health care will cost less after the federal government gets a hold on it hasn't looked much at everything else the federal government already has a hold of.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Talderas]

They can always drop the charges and then he goes free.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nethemas the Great]

The pertinent number would be how many people live in poverty but do not qualify for government healthcare. The pertinent number would be how many people would become impoverished should they take on one of these "reasonable" health plans. The pertinent number would be how many people would become bankrupt should their "reasonable" healthcare coverage fall short after suffering catastrophic illness/injury.

You are either myopic or a cold-hearted, selfish bastard who'd sooner step on everyone else's back if it meant a bigger slice of the pie for you. I suspect you are a card carrying member of the SEP.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[nschubach]

To be fair, there's a good percentage of mechanical work that's done in metric. (My brother works mainly in CNC and machining processes) Also, automobiles are being pretty much forced into supporting metric by imports. It's happening on the industrial level through attrition, but the one place I don't see change anytime soon is distance measurements. Nobody even considers meters when thinking about it. I've noticed gaming actually pushes metric (distances measured in meters for ease really) and somehow people have no problem getting the ribbons/medals in MAG for sniping people from 120m. Nobody complains that it's not 130 yards that I've heard.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[iserlohn]

The very fact that the UK pays half of what the US pays in healthcare in terms of GDP (private + public expenditure) with similar medical outcomes shows you that the NHS+Private two-tier healthcare system works superior to what you have in the US.

In fact, most everybody I know are happy in the UK are happy with their healthcare options. Those that work in the bigger companies usually have "top-up" health insurance provided, this means that many specialist, tests and surgical procedures can be paid for by insurance, while primary care is provided by the NHS. When I used to work for an employer, I had this but never had to use it, even though I had to do a variety of medical tests throughout the years. The wait is less than 2 weeks usually at the local hospital.

Now as a self-employed consultant in a comfortable position, it never really crossed my mind to get any additional cover beyond what is provided by the NHS. The NHS has served my needs very well, especially with the specialists and consultants (ie. surgeons) managed by the NHS trusts (GP/Family Doctors in the UK are much more spotty as they are self-employed and partners and in effect the NHS pays them for seeing patients through a contract). In any event, getting medical insurance here is easy, and some plans are flexible for any pre-existing conditions that you might have.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[VJ42]

WTF? I live in the UK, basic private health insurance is cheaper than that here even though almost no one buys it. ~£250/month is stupid money; are you paying for gold plated toilets or something?

The funniest thing about private vs public health care is that the same doctors work in both. When I was a kid, my dad had private health insurance through his job. The doctor that saw me and surgeon that removed my adenoids split their time between the private hospital that I was in, and the NHS Hospital that was literally over the road. The only benefit of the BUPA hospital was the luxurious hotel room instead of the ward I'd have been in in the NHS hospital - the doctors would have been exactly the same. Many senior doctors do this and a lot of private hospitals are built near NHS ones for this very reason.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[iserlohn]

Because the previous PM had the misfortune of presiding over a financial crises that deregulation in the US helped create.

(Not that Brown was a especially good financial decision maker with regards to the dumping of UK gold reserved back in the 2000s when the price was at a all-time low)

Well, that and a lot of the media properties in the UK is controlled by conservative interests, kinda like the US.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[nschubach]

Estimates consistently show about 30% of all health care spending goes into the billing system. I've heard horror stories about how the average doctor may have to deal with over 100 different insurance companies each of which has it's own long forms that need to be filled out exactly correctly.

I think 100 might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm sure it's exacerbated by the fact that no insurance company can sell policies across state lines. If that restriction was removed, you'd likely be talking about 4-5 parent companies consolidating all that paperwork to far fewer.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Bigbutt]

Why stupid? Think of insurance as Teaching A Horse To Talk

A man is sentenced to die by the king. As the verdict is announced, the man says, "Wait! If you spare my life, I promise that in one year, I will teach your horse to talk. If I fail, you can kill me then." The king is intrigued, and figures he has nothing to lose, so he agrees. Afterwards, the man's friend says, "Are you crazy? You'll never teach the king's horse to talk." The man laughs and says, "Think of it this way. I have an extra year to live, and a lot can happen in a year. I might die. The king might die. And who knows, maybe the horse will learn to talk."

Lots of things could happen before an emergency extraction is needed. She gets a job and is on another insurance company is what they're betting on. They're also betting on other issues making it moot such as a disfiguring or even fatal accident that might be the other driver's fault. Essentially the insurance company is betting you several thousand dollars against your $300 that they won't be the ones called to resolve the problem.

[John]

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nethemas the Great]

When the hell did a 1 in 2 (Men), 1 in 3 (Women) risk of developing cancer during a person's life become an outlier? US healthcare is an abysmal failure for anyone unable to achieve and maintain employment of sufficient quality to leverage available health services. It only works for the healthy middle-class, the independently wealthy, sometimes children, and sometimes elderly.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[errandum]

Most of Portugal's optic fiber network was subsidized ( and it has won prizes for it's architecture and stability ). Every ISP can use it, renting it. That way no one rides for free and broadband is accessible to everyone.

If you fall on hard times, social services can appoint you a government sponsored house. Every gambling activity in the country pays a big amount of taxes to subsidize this program(s). It's not free, you have to pay, but it's cheaper than renting a house and will have somewhere to live.

Education is free in half of European countries, or heavily subsidized (no student gets out of College head deep in Student loans).

Most European countries have an unemployment fund to help you get back on your feet. You do social work in the meanwhile and can't refuse suitable work offers.

You kid, but everyone for himself will only lead to deepen the chasm that exists between the rich and the poor.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

It was an attempt to make any money at all on the ER. My mother works as an accountant who basically has to make the case for paying for patients care.

She is today advocating that the hospital pay ~$2000/month to cover a patients health insurance premiums so they can treat him. He has two kids and a wife, rather than bankrupt them and leave them homeless he is willing to go without treatment. He lost his job, because he has cancer and can't go to work. When that happened he lost his insurance as well.

The hospital might make a little money actually on that one. Nothing like the loggers that come into the ER with chainsaw wounds and no ability to pay at all.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[GooberToo]

You're an exception. You'll find many Hispanic organizations largely exist to shelter, protect, illegals, including protesting lawful actions taken against illegals.

I absolutely do not have anything against legal immigrants. I absolutely understand our nation is built on and largely by immigrants. My problem is the erosion of the bottom of our economy as well as millions of illegal votes (which are still counted) and services provided to illegals, which drains our coffers while ensuring those same people pay nothing back into those coffers.

I tip my hat for being honorable. I wish more were like you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Schadrach]

I've seen arguments claiming that we need better intersectionality protections, you know for the cases where your employer doesn't discriminate against women or black but does discriminate against black women. That way unless you do something criminal, it's impossible to be fired, not promoted, or receive less than company average raises if you are, say, a transgendered lesbian who has one Latino parent and one black parent. You know, so that you are sufficiently minority to be unique within your employers workforce, and thus anything that could be a slight against you is discrimination against your particular intersection of minorities since 100% of black/latino transgendered lesbians who work for the company have been slighted while a substantially smaller percentage of white males were. =p

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ToasterMonkey]

but if you can't afford that then it pays to not have kids and just take care of yourself.

Um, 'too expensive to have a family and raise kids' is not a characteristic of a good health care system.

You just supported everyone else in saying the system is broke.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[errandum]

What happens is the exact opposite. Those with lots of money get better care than those with extra money in most of those countries. Lets say you have excellent health care for rich people and they have very good health care for rich people.

On the other hand, you have lousy, or even nonexistent health care for poor people and those countries still have a very good health care plan for everyone else.

They sacrifice the elite's health care for a good system for everyone. That, I think, is fair.

And, in the end, if you really are rich, you can still pay for your treatment half way around the world, so you still get the best.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fremsley471]

Some strange modding in this tonight. Perfectly reasonable reply above, modded down. Wonder how that multiple account software is proceeding?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[antdude]

I am over 30 and my health seems to be degrading already, but then I was born with multiple disabilities (Nager's Syndrome). Medical bills are nuts. I have to pay $584 per month. It keeps going up almost $100 every year! :(

I have seen people whose health has started to degraded before mine degraded and they don't have severe disabilities. I have one cyberfriend who isn't even 40 and already has cancer (had to remove a kidney). Scary!!! :(

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MightyYar]

individual health insurance policies may become basically unobtainable - either priced into the stratosphere due to adverse selection and/or because insurance companies exit that market.

I think you are mistaken. Back in the 90s when the Obamacare was still called "the Republican health care plan", it was pointed out that a huge portion of the "uninsured" are actually healthy young college students. Further, many uninsured cannot afford to pay at all and force those with healthcare to basically subsidize emergency rooms. Forcing everyone to buy healthcare is a windfall for the insurance companies, and if anything rates should come down.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[VJ42]

So again, where is this money going to come from?

The USA already spends more money per capita on health care than other western with universal coverage systems - no extra money is needed, just reallocation of existing funds; a quick google throws up this bar chart.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

28k is nothing if you need Chemo. Lets use more realistic numbers, lets say the bill comes out to $508k. You think you will have $108k laying around in that mutual fund?

You think it would be ok to spend that $108k, leave your wife and kids with nothing and still die? I know people that made decisions like that.

Anybody who thinks health care will cost less after the federal government gets a hold on it hasn't looked much at everything else the federal government already has a hold of.

Or maybe they have been to nations were it is affordable?
Try traveling a little to gain some perspective on issues like this.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fremsley471]

I know no-one who has paid for private treatment on serious conditions. The NHS is by no means perfect, but the idea that using it fills someone with horror says MUCH more about them than the service they fear was provided.

My wife had a nasty fall last summer, the X-ray of her left wrist was like a comedy cartoon zig-zag. After swelling went down, she saw the consultant on Fri, operated on Sat evening, home Sunday, absolutely first class result.

Oh, and about the USA and costs. My brother sells generic heart drugs by the million. The NHS buys a packet of six for 27p (about 40c). In the USA he gets £5.70 ($9.12) for the same pack.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LoganDzwon]

3) depends on the parent's income

I had both my kids delivered in a hospital, without healthcare. It was about 7K a pop. If anything, anything at all went bad for the mother or the baby the bill would have instantly jumped to over 100K.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MightyYar]

WTF is wrong with us?

Many, many problems.

The government makes treatment demands and then doesn't cover the costs: ER care is mandated but not paid for by the government. This puts a huge strain on hospitals, especially in poor areas, and so you have them closing.

The government subsidizes health care plans for the more affluent via their employers. Employers find that employees prefer plans that insulate the employee from actual costs of care, so no one shops on price.

The government subsidizes health care for the poor and elderly through a single-payer system that under-reimburses care givers, misses important opportunity for cost reduction through negotiation, and has poor incentives for preventative care.

The government subsidizes health care for veterans via a completely separate health care system that is periodically underfunded.

I'd say fixing any of those things is a good start :)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LoganDzwon]

I highly doubt that this man will not wave his right to a speedy trial. Add in unavoidable scheduling conflicts and continuances, he can be in there for over a year easily before the court makes him go to trial.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fyngyrz]

Whether it's the right path or not, universal healthcare will exacerbate the effects of that shortage.

UHC can easily be designed to incorporate the changes that need to be made, and therefore address the shortage. The money is there; we simply need to stop bombing camels. We also need to remove insurance companies from the equation, 100%.

With 20% of the population without healthcare, even the instant addition of them to the load of the current healthcare system would add two days to a ten day delay to see a doctor, or turn a 48-minute wait in the office into an hour's wait. It's not a legitimate reason to resist UHC. Those people need healthcare, and every excuse and delay is directly implicated in increased human suffering. It's morally bankrupt behavior.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MightyYar]

Anybody who thinks health care will cost less after the federal government gets a hold on it hasn't looked much at everything else the federal government already has a hold of.

The 47% of Americans who currently pay no income tax don't care how much it costs. They still won't pay any income tax.

The rest of us might not suffer as much as you think, as our health bills won't have to subsidize the non-payers anymore.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LoganDzwon]

You joke, but that is exactly what they did in Miami. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[suutar]

"Okay, bud, here's the deal. You plead guilty and get 90 days, or we dismiss the charges."

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[gknoy]

I have no idea WHAT we are paying for, only that each year my company tells me "Health care is more expensive, it was the only way to keep the same coverage".

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[iserlohn]

Actually the middle classes in the UK is actually the not-so-fabulously wealthy everywhere else. The upper class in the UK usually involves some linage from aristocracy.

In the UK, most medical insurance only cover specialist, test and medical procedures. Primary care is still with the NHS (through self-employed or partnership GP, which get paid by the NHS through a contract for the patient care they give), which you can in theory choose at will.

Hence, it is ridiculously cheap to get private medical insurance. A plan with SimplyHealth for a family of four will cost around 28 GBP, or around 45 USD per month. Most bigger employers will cover this under a group policy - it makes sense as it cost them so little, it's a added selling point to attract new recruits and potentially the employee would be back at work sooner.

That is the other upshot of the NHS - ridiculously cheap health insurance if you can afford to pay a bit more to jump the queue.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[funkylovemonkey]

About six years ago I developed a kidney stone that refused to pass. I was right out of college, had just lost my health coverage and did not have a job with insurance. The pain was chronic and possibly dangerous (I won't go into the details but also fairly rare). Finally I went to my local hospital and paid out of pocket. After four or five visits along with a CT scan and a trip to the emergency room (and about six hundred dollars in hospital bills) they finally told me that I needed lithotripsy to destroy the stone. Because I had no insurance the cost of them blasting the stone in an out patient operation (basically going into the hospital that morning and being kicked to the curb by lunch) was roughly 8000 dollars. Instead I flew to Germany where a weeks stay in the hospital and two lithotripsy operations (because the stone did not break up the first time) along with x-rays, ultrasounds and other tests cost me 3000 dollars. Add in a plane ticket that cost about 600 and I paid less then half to fly across the world to get the operation done then I would have paid here in the states (even worse, if I had to have two operations in the states the total would have been 16,000, whereas the German doctors only charged me a few hundred more for a few more days in the hospital). I had grown up hearing all my life about the horrors of socialized medicine. About long waits and incompetent care. What I experienced was the opposite. I had longer waits in US hospitals (including a two hour wait for a CT scan, I never waited more then half an hour for anything in Germany). What shocked me more was how brazenly I was treated by the doctors here in the US, who seemed almost uninterested in what I had to say and were more interested in getting me out of their office. I also had the unfortunate experience in the US during this time of having one of my samples switched with someone else's and had the doctor (erroneously) call me into the office to tell me I had Hepatitis C. I wasn't amused.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[characterZer0]

I am all for spending tax revenue on those who cannot afford health care instead of on bank bailouts, wars, school buses, and incarceration of potheads.

I am not in favor of spending tax revenue on health care for those with household incomes of 50k+ who say they cannot afford it because they have bigger houses and nicer cars than I do.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[yarnosh]

Ding, we have a winner.

He may be right about the costs, but that doesn't answer the original problem of the many people who don't access to decent care when it comes to things that lay somewhere between emergency and routine checkup. Whether the fundamental problem is lack of insurance coverage or cost of healthcare in general, the fact remains that many people don't have access to decent healthcare, anecdotes about how your own friends love their healthcare notwithstanding.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

Lets say you save $100/month by taking a lower coinsurance (whatever they call it) and invest it at 12% for 20 years, that's $100,000. IF you have to spend it, it's money you would have lost anyways. Either you keep it or the insurance executives keep it.

If you're not comfortable with that scenario then buy a more comprehensive plan. It's your choice. For now.

Personally, a low coinsurance scares me, but I'd prefer a super high deductible.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jstlook]

I have to disagree. I'm Alaskan, and I can say that anything under 0 means it's time to put on a jacket cause it's no longer T-shirt weather. "too f'in cold" is what happens after 40 below. That's not affiliated to Fahrenheit OR Celsius!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[carpefishus]

Were you trying to make me feel stupid for not doing a "quick google"? Actually, the "facts" on your link are slanted. I suggest that you do a more thorough Google. Start with the falsehood of infant mortality. "Move on" to figuring out WHY the spending is higher in the US. Consider why rich folks from around the world come for health care in the US. Now go back to Winston Churchill's quote and think about "equal sharing of miseries." I have excellent and expensive healthcare. This is one of the reasons I have worked hard. I really don't want to be forced to share that with entitled lazy folk. Oh, and before you get the idea that I am selfish, I give a VERY SIGNIFICANT amount of MONEY (4 times the US average for my bracket and 5 times the average Democrat) and TIME to charity. My choice.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HungWeiLo]

I'm on a T-Mobile family plan with a Droid on a voice and unlimited data for $30/person.

I don't think $30 buys you much health care.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LoganDzwon]

In honesty, that is the fault of the insurance companies. If you were paying cash you would have worked out a payment plan ahead of time, and likely paid about 50K. Basically the insurance companies make their own rates. They want to make the rates so low that medical workers wont make any profit off their work. To combat this the medical workers have to raise their advertised price, so they have a better barging chip when renegotiating their rates with the insurance company. This has created a race condition producing the effects you witnessed. Ironically, the real losers are those with "major emergency" only insurance. If you have that you technically have insurance, so you get billed full price, but the insurance really doesn't cover pretty much anything.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Shompol]

2) Be real poor. This will usually qualify you for Medicaid--which sucks, but is also better than nothing.

Medicare is much better compared to insurances that the middle class has, as provided by their employers. Permanently unemployed have better healthcare than over half of working Americans, all funded by taxes collected from the latter.

Example: a typical employer-provided insurance covers a hospital visit up to some $X amount, while medicare will pay ALL OF IT. I think the reasoning is that the "permanently unemployed" cannot cover the rest from own pocket.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PAjamian]

Nah, he'll just have to walk out his front door and violate his house arrest.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Shivetya]

There are people pissing away $150 on their phones who stand around and ask where their free care is. So whats your point?

Nothing lasts forever, but damn if people don't seem to put their own personal health at the bottom of life's priorities. Seems to me most are concerned with a flashy car, smart phone, high fashion, and watching reality tv on their widescreens.

Ask them to pay for their health care and they scream and bitch or reply with hyperbole, like "it won't last forever"

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ISurfTooMuch]

Are you employed? If you are, then you aren't paying $150. That's the part that comes directly out of your paycheck. There's also an employer contribution that is almost certainly more than the amount you pay. Call HR, and they can tell you how much it is. The thing is, even though you don't think it's coming out of your pocket, it really is, since it's money your employer is having to pay to keep you as an employee, which means it's money you won't be seeing in your salary.

And, just in case you're wondering why adding dependents onto your plan often costs so much, it's because most companies will either pay a smaller contribution for those folks or won't pay any at all, which means that you, the employee, pay most or all of the actual cost of coverage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Billly Gates]

Calling someone stupid is very insulting. ... I do agree with you fully. $41, 000 avg is being obscured by the out-liner effects of the top 2% of income earners. Just because you have a regular blue collar job does not mean you deserve to die for not providing a greater value that the top 15%. It is morally wrong and disgusting.

Still why should we put up with that? ... on that is right the drug companies and health insurance companies are the top campagn contributers and lobbiests who would want to see your family destitute and poor after a single catastrophic medical problem. After all, that is more money for them?

We are going to have a revolution soon and an American version of the Arab spring. This is unsustainable and with so many people broke, poor, hungry, in debt, and out of health insurance it is only a matter of time before they hit the streets to protest. If our own government is so corrupt to fix the problems then people will take action themselves.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[dkf]

The median household income in the US is $44k. The mean household income in the US is $60k. Where did you get $31k?

It could have been the modal income; the mode is usually the lowest of the three major average types, for the kinds of distribution seen in things like incomes (where there's a long upper tail but much more bunching up at the bottom end).

Speaking from a statistical PoV. I've no idea what the values actually are. :-)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[matt_hs]

He can always up the ante -- go rob a bank of $1,000, commit an assault, etc. He's not entirely powerless in this situation. Something that would bring in a federal charge.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[dkf]

The median household income in the US is $44k. The mean household income in the US is $60k. Where did you get $31k?

It could have been the modal income; the mode is usually the lowest of the three major average types, for the kinds of distribution seen in things like incomes (where there's a long upper tail but much more bunching up at the bottom end).

Also, the GGP is talking about personal income whereas the GP is talking about household income. The majority of households will have more than one income-earner so things are still consistent.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hazydave]

There are several reasons... and that's ignoring the fact that state run healthcare, everywhere else in the world, has proven more effective, more universal, and about half the cost of the US system today.

The first big problem is profit motive. A government organization filled with government workers (eg, like Congress, the Senate, the Military, etc) is not expected to turn a profit. And no multi-million dollar CEO salaries. So, as long as it's well run (yes, that's an argument, but it applies equally to private enterprise), most of the money going into the system is used for healthcare. Not profits. Not advertising. Not lobbying... and generally, lobbying against the best interests of those served by the insurance industry. This is one big reason so much money is spent in the US for lower quality healthcare, versus more civilized countries.

Another issues is price negotiations... countless smaller healthcare companies cannot as effectively negotiate on the price of medicine and other supplies as can the entire country. And even if you did open up healthcare insurance to competition, there's no real guarantee it'll be actual competition. Other types of insurance are openly competitive on the surface, but they're really practicing artificial competition -- they bring you in at a discounted rate that looks great next to what you're paying, but a year later, you're paying more or less what you did at the old company. And they spend hundreds of millions in advertising to grab each others customers on a rotating basis. Geico alone spent over US$900 million last year in advertising... and they just do car insurance. That's over 10% of their expenses right there, before a single car is repaired. The health insurance business is an order of magnitude (at least) larger. You really want to see tens of billions in healthcare money going into these kinds of campaign?

The US healthcare system is also rabidly anti-business... unless you happen to be in the insurance business. I've even heard Righties saying this about "Obamacare" recently... but the main flaw in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that if left this as a problem... it didn't create it. In all these other countries, businesses are not funding healthcare. So they have an immediate competitive advantage over US manufacturing. Universal healthcare gets the business out of the picture, and the hand out of their wallets on this. If the right were actually pro business (they're "pro" donation, primarily, which is why they've sided with the insurance lobby and against every other business in the USA... all those other guys are spending their lobbying money on other things), if the left actually had the balls to not cave in to the right before the negotiations even begin (could be a medical problem, but ball exams are probably not covered). And of course, all of the people actually making the laws, both those caving in and those rising up against any notion of public healthcare, enjoy the best public healthcare system in the country... all Senators and Congresscritters get this.

And finally... healthcare as insurance is fundamentally the wrong answer. The insurance companies can insure things that are properly insured. My house and car, for example... something bad might happen, but chances are, no. But each and every person on the planet will eventually have a health issue of some kind. If that issue isn't immediate death, they will need medical treatment. Insurance is the wrong answer for something so guaranteed. And for something that needs constant treatment. Actual health care includes a strong prevention component... stress health rather than medicine, and you lower costs AND increase the quality of life. US healthcare is largely about fixing what's already broken.

 

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

You do realize that with an HSA I'll be able to perpetually fund my entire life's medical expenses right? Any amount in my account over $3000, I'm allowed to invest into things like mutual funds and return the dividends into the account tax free. I'm young and relatively healthy now. So sparing some catastrophe I'll be able to put enough money in the account over a few year period to where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible, funding my healthcare for the rest of my life. Worst case scenario and I do have to reach that deductible a couple times, it'll take a few years longer, but all in all, a net win.

Also, quality and cost come together to show value. The $3000 sleep study I was quoted was from a major hospital with a bigger reputation. The $1000 one was from a private practice that had a good reputation. For something like a brain surgery, sure, I'll go with the top guy, but for something like telling me if I have sleep apnea, please. Both are licensed and held to standards and have good reputations. No reason to not take the $1000 guy.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[toadlife]

as well as millions of illegal votes (which are still counted)

Absolute nonsense.

services provided to illegals

A drop in the bucket, and easily offset by the payroll and consumption taxes paid by illegal immigrants.

which drains our coffers while ensuring those same people pay nothing back into those coffers.

Tell that that to the social security administration, who estimates payroll tax contributions from undocumented workers have made up a estimated 5-10% of the social security trust fund - a fund which they will never ever receive from.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

No. If he'd kept his mouth shut about his intentions, and asked for enough money to classify it as grand larceny, he'd have easily gotten what he wanted.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[h4rr4r]

Where in the name of the FSM are you getting 12% today?
I have a 5 figure amount of money on hand I would love to get 12% on. No joke, 12% sounds fucking awesome. I would love to hear about anything above 3.5%.

You don't have to spend it, your survivors could always get it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

There's nothing immoral about not wanting the government involved. That doesn't mean we or I don't want to help people, it's just a difference as to how people should be helped. I personally prefer true organic change.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[timeOday]

Breaking news. You are more likely to get sick and die as you get older. More at 11.

And yet, that is precisely the problem that is not fixed with a voluntary insurance system. By the time you're old enough to need health care, you're not productive enough to pay for it any more. Thus the need for an insurance mandate or tax. It really is that simple.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[emt377]

I assume you're talking health INSURANCE. Not healthcare. Because anyone, legal us citizen or not, can receive healthcare at the ER.

This though isn't going to provide you with statins if your blood pressure is high, checkups or monitoring following a stroke or heart attack, insulin, or anything else that is actually useful in keeping you healthy and out of the ER. Even a prison doctor can provide those things.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jumpy]

I just went through something similar. For me it was back surgery. Hospital sent letter saying it cost 27K. I got billed about 2K. No way I could have come up with 27K. It totally sucks. So grateful I have insurance. (For now)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DickBreath]

> So what you're saying is that he'll have to commit a more serious crime?

Yes. Robbery? Kidnapping? Rape? Murder?

Naaah. Go for the really big crimes. Copyright Infringement

That one allows you to skip the lengthy and inconvenient "due process" nonsense.

Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

They don't use Medicaid unless they have forged papers in the name of someone who actually exists (or did) as a US citizen. Application to Medicaid requires proof of US citizenship.

What they will do is use emergency rooms, which actually costs hospitals money since they are legally obligated to treat but will never collect the bill from someone who cannot pay. In turn, that costs everyone else money, since the hospitals raise rates to cover the cost of people who use emergency rooms with no intention of paying for the care they receive.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Zugok]

This story is a sad state of affairs.

I am not saying this guy has mental health issues, but I have some perspective on the matter regarding serious crime and mental health issues in prison having just completed a paper on Psychiatry and the Law at a New Zealand university. In a guest lecture from a retired California judge, the LA County jail was labelled as the largest de facto mental hospital in the USA.

In New Zealand, when someone has mental health issues and has allegedly commited a crime, they could be made what is called a 'special patient' either by being 'unfit to stand trial' or 'not guilty by reason of insanity' but having a continuing risk of serious harm to others and the need for . These people are put into mental health insititutes and receive care in those places. Those which are found to be insane at trial have an indefinite disposition, which possible can exceed the length of a sentence specified in statute and release is actually political rather than clinical or judicial. Duration for thos unfit to stand trial is defined but release is also political.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

When the hell did a 1 in 2 (Men), 1 in 3 (Women) risk of developing cancer during a person's life become an outlier?

What part of unemployed did you fail to understand?

If this is the best people can do to criticize the idea that the person with the most to lose should have the most to say about how money is spent for their treatment, then its no wonder the US healthcare system is in shambles.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hazydave]

The single largest cause of bankruptcy in the USA? Medical expenses incurred by people who were "fully covered". That's about half of all bankruptcies.

And chances are, you'll never know if you're fully covered or not. And even if you are, you may have some hours of taking at your insurance company to ensure they agree. There seems to be a standard policy at most insurance companies to just randomly reject claims, even those they know are covered.

I do know from where I speak. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in April of 2010. She had very good health insurance for someone in the US these days... at least a one-time advantage of being a teacher in New Jersey. Six surgeries, 16 weeks of chemotherapy, 6 weeks of radiotherapy down, and one surgery left to go, we haven't spent a great deal out of pocket (but some financial fallout from her missing summer school in 2010). But again, this is about as good as it gets, and you'll find millions of people who thought they were just as secure, but weren't.

And diseases like this are curable, but extremely expensive to cure. We're probably over $50,000 on surgeries alone, probably in the same ballpark on chemo drugs... just Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) costs over a million per kg just to produce (expensive to administer too -- only by infusion).. and there are some cancer drugs over 10x that price. And once you have the cancer drug, there are a half-to-a-dozen additional drugs just to mitigate the effect of the cancer drug. That's also part of the problem -- such things are done just as well in other parts of the world, but the expenses are much better controlled.

But we did receive thousands of dollars in bills that should have been covered, and had to argue about them. And honestly, this insurance company was amazingly well run compared to others we've both dealt with.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

That would require the elimination of social programs that require recipients to live below the poverty line and/or having more children than they can pay for.

This is not a post for/against eliminating social programs, simply an observation.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Darinbob]

He'll probably be out on bail soon, or if he refuses that he wont spend the whole time in lockup.
On the other hand, in the month or two he is in jail he will probably be able to see a doctor. It may not be that he gets long term healthcare this way, but he can get _some_ healthcare.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Carnildo]

I can think of one agency of the government that actually does a really good job fiscally, providing a good service at a low price: the US Post Office.

The Post Office hasn't been part of the government since 1978.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

To further illustrate your point about the current disconnect with actual costs, check out this piece from NPR about how drug companies game the copay system to sell massively over-priced drugs which in turn causes large increases in health insurance premiums.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LunaticTippy]

I've had a HSA for about 5 years now. There are some big problems with them. I will point out 3 I have encountered personally.

Once you know you will hit your deductible you are given perverse incentives. I broke my foot in late December, so I waited until January to have expensive care given. This ended up costing more than prompt treatment. And, since I hit my deductible for the year in the first week of January I felt compelled to use as much health care as possible in order to get my moneys worth. I'm not the type to go to the doc for any old thing, but there are plenty of people who would have seriously abused the situation. As it was, I got everything done that had been ignored the other years.

It is tempting to put off preventative care even if it saves money overall.

The insurer doesn't cover everything. My surgery had many excluded items and I ended up paying about double my deductible. I contested many of the items but most of them were rejected. It is sort of strange that things like crutches and ruined toenail removal weren't covered. I don't have much faith that it will cover something truly serious like heart surgery or cancer treatment.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

What the hell are you talking about? The USPS is owned by the government, and is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. How can something not be "a part of" the government but be owned by them?

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Hazel Bergeron]

The issue of Mental Health Acts being the only official way of locking someone up indefinitely without being found guilty in a properly executed court trial... could have been tackled carefully over the last 30-40 years within a modern framework of human rights. It was instead used as an excuse to allow people with mental health difficulties to roam the streets until they commit a crime, then, as you say, lock them up in a regular jail.

If people were to regard locking-up as protection (of society in most cases; of yourself in a few) rather than punishment, justice would be far more just. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is rather outmoded: it assumes that what matters is whether you are rationally responsible (using quasi-religious notions of responsibility) rather than whether you actually did something harmful. The insanity aspect is relevant only to (i) whether you can defend yourself properly; (ii) what your sentence should be.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hazydave]

Incidently... thanks to big fat Chris Christie (Jersey governor), my wife's insurance, formerly a benefit (teachers have typically had great benefits and lousy pay... as an engineer working at startups for the last few years, I'm usually dealing with good pay and lousy benefits), may cost as much as $6,000 this next year, to cover our family of four. As with many of the Republican governors, Christie has been working hard to effectively increase taxes on teachers, firemen, police, and other public employees, so he can afford the tax breaks previously given to the richest in the state.

Of course, what he's effectively done is killed an untold number of small businesses. It's an on-going thing... we lost a couple locally already this year (Woodstown/Pilesgrove), even a liquor store. Those are supposed to do well in bad economies...

The rich are already the richest (compared to the average) they've been since before the great depression -- additional income does nothing. Same with businesses -- additional income does absolutely nothing to grow a business. Additional demand for a product or service is the thing that grows a business. And these new sideways taxes have just ensured that a big chunk of the New Jersey middle class will have thousands less to spend this year and next.

That's important to understand -- the poor and the middle class spend all of their income; the rich don't. So additional lower end income boosts an economy, additional higher end income alone does nothing to the local economy. Boosting everyone's income boosts the economy, but only for a very short time.. things do ultimately stabilize around supply and demand... the price of things in short supply go up, and eventually, no one sees that income boost any longer. But I digress...

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[fyngyrz]

And he can re-offend, up the ante, and be right back where he wants to be. Its *easy* to go to jail.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

It also may be due to risk aversion, which is one of the most common themes in business.

Women are more risky to employ than men in the current legal climate. The fact that they bear children provides them with legal protections unavailable to most men. This can come at a substantial cost to the business employing them.

Of course, saying something that is factually true doesn't stop people from calling you sexist. I believe women are just as capable as men, but it is not possible to argue that they are an equal business risk under current laws.

The closest you could get to equalizing that difference is to provide legally-guaranteed universal paternal leave that is identical to what expectant, working mothers get.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PoolOfThought]

You left out the rest of my comments - the part that covered the rest of the items you brought up.
"Like getting a high deductable plan that covers catastropic events (think HSA), but most things come out of pocket up until that high deductible is reached. And if you've done any sort of planning (like maybe building an emergency fund) you can cover said deductible. " -- I guess I could add to that paying for medication going forward if you even need it --

Checkups are important and man oh man wouldn't it be great if they were fully covered. But they're also not very expensive. Most doctors will take a discount if you offer to pay cash at time of service.

I just looked up the price for insulin. About $150 a month was an average without insurance.

Statins approx $100 for the namebrand stuff.

Let me know when I get to the part that middle of the road (in terms of finances) people shouldn't be able to do for themselves.

Many people can check with their county health dept. Depending on where you live the county health dept. may offer programs for people with chronic illness such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease etc. A lot of them charge on a sliding scale based on your income so it's not necessarily low-income programs. The same is true at many universities and psyc services.

I don't have all the answers, but I know sure as hell that the parent to my original comment shined an intentionally dull light on the options of how people can try to take care of themselves. I'm also not heartless and I think there are improvements that can be made... but I'm confident that lying about how things currently work and what your current options are is not the best way to participate in such a discussion.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HornWumpus]

Six month and one year cancer survival rates dispute the 'similar outcomes' claim.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[GooberToo]

Absolute nonsense.

Absolute ignorance. Its well documented fact. Pull your head from your ass.

They've been trying to pass laws which require citizenship validation. Its constantly fought and defeated because of morons like you who thing what actually is going on can't actually happen.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[VJ42]

You wouldn't have to.
For the same amount of money your government is already spending, you could have a universal health care system and still have private insurance available to anyone who who wishes it - that's the system here in the UK, and from looking at people quoting health insurance prices,it seems even our private health insurance is cheaper than yours...

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ArrogantLemming]

When I was on a plan with a similar price bracket, the deductible was also per incident. Thus your friend would would have been charged the $1,500 each time until he hit the much higher yearly limit (mine was $10k). Also to bring down the prices of these plans, they tend to have separate deductibles for hospital, medication, and preventative care.

Also to the GP, you're really identifying the missing option #8) Pay for emergency only coverage. I believe the older post's "Pay it yourself" was referring to paying for all care without the help of insurance.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

hurting a lawyer gets you the same penalty as hurting a human

It used to technically be a "cruelty to animals" charge, until the animals complained.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MobyDisk]

I wasn't arguing one way or another on that issue. But I am curious: please explain.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

There is no such thing as a free market where insurance is concerned. It's either mandatory by law, or the market is fractured by regulations preventing competition nationally. The former would be auto insurance; the latter health insurance.

Your car insurance is nowhere near what health insurance costs, and for good reason. Most people in poverty choose the cheapest available option. For that, a driver with a decent record and modest vehicle will pay maybe $50-$100 a month. Your policy will cap out at something like $100,000 (I don't recall what the lower limits required by law are, so forgive if that's way off). For bodily injury, it's maybe $2M. Health insurance costs far exceed auto insurance costs, but the premiums last I was looking into a policy were around 3x a basic auto insurance policy for an individual. When you look at the cost of an operation and hospital stay, that's a damn good deal, even as screwed up as the insurance industry is. For something catastrophic, the payout is usually many more multiples of the premium than what you get from a totaled car.

Yeah, there are things that need to be fixed; those things are mostly regulations that enrich corporations and reduce access. That's not a free market. Blaming the "free market" is a red herring. Such a thing doesn't really exist in the USA.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HornWumpus]

Join IEEE.

After a year you can get into their group plan.

Everybody should join some professional organization that sponsors a health plan group as backup for their work provided plan. It is part of prudent change planning.

Also IEEE is a great group and worth the money just for the publications.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MobyDisk]

I wasn't actually aware that it expires and is renewed each year. Should I be getting some kind of notice about that? They bill me monthly so I don't see a start/end date on the coverage period other than the billing period. I suppose that means they could cancel me on a monthly basis if they wanted to. Thanks for bringing that up. Food for thought.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[justin12345]

I always found it a bit silly that we take better care of our criminals than we do of our homeless. Sure, some homeless refuse help and just want to get their next fix, but they are far from the majority. Those are just the ones that you will see most often due to their drug dependency.

A lot of the homeless people that you would assume are drug addicts are actually schizophrenic or have other debilitating mental issues. They also don't have access to health care. Some might also be drug addicts as well as crazy, as self medicating is common (for instance schizophrenics tend to smoke a lot as the nicotine helps them keep it together a little).

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HornWumpus]

Jim Henson was a christian scientist who 'prayed things better'.

Blame religion for his death. Don't use it as an excuse to clog the system every time you have a cold.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[iceaxe]

Paying for yourself not practical? I don't smoke and I'm not overweight, and I pay $150/mo for full coverage. If I stay in the hospital, I'm never on the hook for more than $1500; my insurance pays the rest. Granted I am single and young, but I'm not exactly going bankrupt here. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy it can be a a huge burden, but if you can't afford that then it pays to not have kids and just take care of yourself.

Last year I worked as a consultant for a firm that offered group insurance but did not make any contributions to it, leaving the consultant to foot the entire cost. I went shopping for individual insurance to see if I could find a better deal.

As it turns out, because of pre-existing conditions, my wife could be covered by a risk pool plan that cost approximately three times the monthly cost of our mortgage. Because of my own pre-existing conditions I could not find any insurance company that would sell me health insurance unless they excluded coverage for my condition. So, in other words, largely useless. Covering our young and reasonably healthy kids was not a huge problem.

So, total estimate: approximately 1.8 times my net income, for insurance that would not cover my current health problems, leaving me to pay out of pocket for those, in addition.

I went for the group insurance, of course. It only cost 10% more than the mortgage.

My consulting income, which was about 25% more than the full-time position I held previously, ended up being a net decrease.

This year I took a full time position with the company I consulted for, with benefits. I couldn't afford to stay a consultant.

I'm a college graduate with a solid career and good pay. I can't even imagine how someone struggling to earn a living could do it.

No, I take that back. I know how they do it. They have no health insurance, and don't get healthcare until things are life threatening and vastly more expensive. Then the rest of us pay for it when they get treatment and can't pay.

Why couldn't we have paid for them to get better and cheaper care in the first place, if we ended up paying more later anyway?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[VJ42]

In contrast to not knowing what I'm paying for, I know the the NHS has given me access to some of the best doctors in the world - that's not hyperbole, either. I've been epileptic since age 9 - around age 15 I had brain surgery at Great Ormond St. Children's Hospital - the surgeon told me they do about twelve of the type of operation he performed per year. Ultimately, I continued having fits but I recently saw that surgeon being interviewed on a TV documentary about the Human brain after he'd performed complex surgery on a newborn baby. These are the calibre of people employed by the NHS

Whatever's wrong with my genetics has also given me other (possibly, possibly not related) conditions - I have the doctors stumped, the folks at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery are currently using cutting-edge techniques to analyse my mitochondrial DNA (from blood samples); the consultant jokingly told me not to tell anyone they were doing this because the research is so new (I'm still waiting on results). Wealthy Sheiks pay hundred's of thousands of pounds to get in to these hospitals as private patients (seriously, they take private patients in the very same Hospitals, with the same doctors!) - I get it through just paying my taxes. I don't think any realistic level of insurance in the USA would give me the care I've received on the NHS.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HornWumpus]

I keep posting to all you fools.

Join IEEE or some other professional organization that sponsors a health group. They usually take a year before you are eligible but that is still better then being a 'health care slave'.

There are other choices besides employer sponsored groups and individual insurance.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[twebb72]

I'd say your experience with insurance providers is pretty limited. I'm probably your same age, and also your same health level. I have TMJ/TMD, which causes pain in my jaw. Something I was born with, but only became problematic in my 20s.
I cannot get insurance anywhere. I get turned down whenever I apply. They know its a $25k surgery, so its a flat out, no. As soon as you make a claim, you'll get dropped or your premiums will skyrocket. At $150/mo, you'd have to be paying into your plan for 14 years to become profitable to them if you had the same condition as I do. If you are not 100% profitable, you will not get insurance. Period.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Nethemas the Great]

Ok, so 20% of that then : 1 in 10 (Men) or 1 in 15 (Women) at risk of cancer and unemployed. You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance. We can of course play with the numbers by factoring out elderly, children, or whatever you feel like excluding, but then I'll just add another catastrophic malady that would make up the statistical difference. The point is, if I were an individual that fancied gambling I'd could place a most confident bet that at some point in a person's life a catastrophic medical condition will coincide with a lack of adequate medical insurance coverage.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[meta-monkey]

Expect your premiums to go up by 15% a year, every year. I'm self-employed and pay for health insurance for my wife and myself. Healthy, non-smokers. Started when I was about 24 or so and my premiums were $200/month. Now I'm 33 and it's about $500/month. No changes in health, and no major claims made...just age and inflation. I know self-employed people in their 40s and 50s who pay $1200-$1400/month.

Not saying it's impossible to pay your own way...it's just really expensive.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[GNious]

You are either myopic or a cold-hearted, selfish bastard who'd sooner step on everyone else's back if it meant a bigger slice of the pie for you.

I think the term you're looking for is "Human".

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Anonymous Cowpat]

but a doctor visit is only about $150 out of pocket

Only? that's 2-3 days of my pre-tax pay to see the doctor for what? 10 minutes? 20?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DavidTC]

What he means is that the Post Office doesn't cost the government anything.(1)

Which rather makes exactly the opposite point than he intended. The Post office not only can do that, it's not using taxpayer money to do it.

1) Technically, the Post Office does get some money from the government, for charity work like mailing things to the blind, and for the 'free' postal that the governments gets. But that's just the government paying for the costs it added to the post office.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[HornWumpus]

Have you ever known someone really poor?

They do make the most god awful decisions I've ever seen.

Some people are poor because of bad luck. Most are poor because they are lazy morons.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DavidTC]

Why do you guys keep electing these people to be your leaders then? I've never heard Britons speak highly of their US-ass-kissing PMs, yet they keep electing them. (Yes, I know PMs aren't directly elected like our Presidents, but they're elected by the legislature, right? You elect your legislators.)

While I'm an American, I can guess.

Imagine the US didn't have primaries. Imagine, instead, that you voted for which party had the presidency...and then they picked the guy. It's like an inverted primary system.

Basically, they have even less direct control than we do, and somehow we keep electing people that do things the majority of people don't like, like continue the war on drugs. They can't even ask questions of the candidates. All they can do is pick a party platform. (And then half the time it's a coalition government, meaning that the party they voted for compromises their platform with some other party.)

I admire the fact that the UK has a system in which more than two parties have some say so. I don't admire the fact they can't really pick their leadership at all because of that.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance

You of course fail to realize that you are not talking about insurance, but actual treatment. You are so far off on a red herring you've forgotten the original point that regardless of the source of the money, it needs to be spent by the person with the most to lose if it is misspent.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[anyGould]

And with such industrious countries as Liberia & Myanmar that aren't on Metric yet.

UK isn't really on the metric either -- not 100%. Grams / kilos seems to have taken root for lots of things; but most people still measure their weight in stone, for crying out loud. Speed limits and distance signs are still done in miles; pubs still serve pints. Temperature is measured in Celcius, and the younger generation don't have a "sense" for what numbers in Fahrenheit are. Things on the order of a meter are measured in meters, but feet are still bandied about quite a bit.

It's the same here in Canada. Partly because the older generation still thinks of things in Imperial (and teach that to their kids), and partly because of American Imperial Influence (pun absolutely intended).

At a glance, I'd say we're pretty much on Celsius over Fahrenheit, liters are beating gallons, and kgs over pounds (except for someone's weight). Lengths are hit and miss: distances are kilometers, but heights are feet/inches. And metric just doesn't supply good replacements for cups and ounces.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[toadlife]

Absolute ignorance. Its well documented fact.

Then provide the documentation please.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[MartinSchou]

Everyone thinks "this treatment costs X and the benefit is Y, do I want it?". This will drive down the cost and give you all the benefits of competitive marketplace.

You need new lungs. This treatment costs X and the benefit is surviving.

I'll leave it up to you to fill in X and find the spot where you are no longer willing to pay what it'll cost.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TheSpoom]

8) Make enough money to buy an individual insurance plan on your own. It's extremely expensive, and will probably be a big portion of your income unless you're pretty well-off, but people do it.

I did this for several months. It pretty much priced me out of contracting. Luckily, I found a full time position with full benefits.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[mijelh]

And no, Germans don't always get the best doctor in the hospital. That's just ridiculous. What are the other doctors doing all day, nothing?

He said:

You usally get the best your hospital / doctor has to offer.

As I understand he means you get the best *your doctor* has to offer, not the best doctor. Anyway I guess you can choose the doctor you prefer, as it happens in other EU countries (for instance here in Spain)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[TooMuchToDo]

You do realize that with an HSA I'll be able to perpetually fund my entire life's medical expenses right?

As long as your contributions to your HSA keep up with your out-of-pocket healthcare costs, yes.

Any amount in my account over $3000, I'm allowed to invest into things like mutual funds and return the dividends into the account tax free.

Does it really seem wise to invest money you may need in short notice in anything other than extremely liquid investment vehicles (i.e. money market funds)? Lets not even get into the risk aspect, as the only way you're going to get returns beating inflation (currently at roughly 3.2%) is to invest in something more risky than treasury bills, muni bonds that aren't going to default, and so forth.

So sparing some catastrophe I'll be able to put enough money in the account over a few year period to where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible, funding my healthcare for the rest of my life.

I've just bolded the whole point of health insurance.

I'll take single-payer/universal healthcare thanks. Play roulette on your own health if you choose.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[anyGould]

For most families it would be more like "Oh, so you want a home, a way to get to work, health care AND food".

10,000-15,000 really will break most average people. Byt I guess to assholes like you, they can just go to hell as long ans you've got yours, right?

My first reaction to seeing a 10-15K / year number is - screw insurance, invest that cash! In ten years you can afford to pay that 100K med bill from your savings, for Pete's sake!

For as a point of comparison, my health insurance in Canada (in Alberta - not known for it's quality healthcare) runs less than $100 a month for a family of three. (And that's counting the half my company pays in). And that also includes glasses, dental, and a host of upkeep-type benefits, in addition to the "OMG I'm dying" coverage.)

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

Lol, I love this kind of argument. You're using an outlier example that happens rarely at best as an attempt to disprove the 99.9% of cases. No system is completely perfect, but for that vast majority of cases, beyond reasonable comparison, HSAs work amazingly well. Sure, there are going to be people injured close to the buzzer and they may want to hold off on getting care until after the start of the year, but that's their decision as an adult to evaluate the situation and weigh the pros and cons, and it's not going to be a significant enough number to justify significant changes to the system.

Yeah, the insurer doesn't cover everything like crutches and elective surgeries. The same goes for HMOs as well. But the purchases should be tax deductible under HSAs.

The one big point I think you're missing is that you can perpetually fund your entire life's medical expenses with your HSA. Any money you have over $3000 in the account, you're able to invest into things like mutual funds. If you keep your balance up and spend several years keeping it there, eventually you should have enough that the dividends from the mutual funds exceed your yearly deductible.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[vux984]

How long do you wait for an appt?

Not long at all.

But things like Surgery and MRI etc are a limited resource. In a public system where supply is fixed by tax budget and demand is relatively inelastic relative to population how should "supply" get allocated against "demand".

Letting the market sort it out according to what people are willing to pay, favoring the rich and leaving the poor by the wayside isn't it.

First Come first serve is idiotic. You'll have a guy with a punctured lung expiring in the waiting room while you treat a twisted ankle.

Hmm... wait... there is a system that doctors the world over use when the objective is to dispense limited medical aid to the most people possible with the greatest benefit... triage.

And that's the situation here effectively. If someone needs surgery immediately, they are rushed to the front of the line, pushing back those who 'need it' but can go another week or month without it.

The upshot is that its fair, and those who need urgent treatment are treated first. One outcome, given limited resources, is there is a category of people who need treatment, but who aren't urgent... and they can tend to wait a while... often in considerable but not life threatening discomfort.

Occasionally, someone who is waiting takes a turn for the worse, and gets elevated to urgent, and everyone laments that "if only they'd been seen sooner, it could have been prevented". And this is absolutely true...and its tragic.
But think it through, there is no way to know which people will take a turn for the worse, or when. And if they'd been treated as urgent out of the gate, then someone else who needed treatment urgently would have been delayed and that would be no less tragic.

The only "fix" is to increase funding to the point that nobody ever waits "too long" but that's probably more than the country can afford.

Capitalist medical systems don't fix the problem at all. If the Canadian who needed treatment but not urgently lived in the states... there is no gaurantee he'd get treatment in the states any faster. He might not be able to afford it.

Now the fact that middle and upper class Canadian's may elect to "jump the queue" by seeking treatment in the states does represent a lack of capacity in the system. A lack that could be alleviated by raising taxes on the upper and middle class... yet they aren't having any of that... they want to pay as little as possible in taxes just like anyone else.

Until THEY get ill... and then suddenly all the money in the world isn't as important to THEM as seeing a doctor as soon as possible... and since they have the money... they spend it. That's just human nature, not a failing of the Canadian system.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[skegg]

>> Granted I am ... young

Well, there's your answer.
You won't be young forever. Eventually you'll get old, and things will stop working to specs.

Do we really need a car analogy for this one?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Alsee]

Yeah, I expected you to go down that path since it's the standard criticism to the Ryan voucher plan and nothing to do with what's under consideration here. This isn't about vouchers to purchase health insurance this is about a cash substitute that can only be used to purchase treatment.

I checked quote a few links on that through Google, and all of them say it's about vouchers to purchase insurance. In fact once of the links I checked was Ryan's own website where he himself says quote "a voucher with which to purchase insurance".

And beyond that, what you describe makes absolutely no sense. The majority of people aren't sick and wouldn't need to use even a fraction of the voucher in any given year, while on the other hand a $10,000 dollar voucher would have exactly ZERO VALUE for someone who requires a $40,000 surgery if they don't have $30,000 of their own cash in hand. It's not like you can use it to buy one-fourth of a surgery, and then go home and band-aid your organs back into your body.

Ryan's plan to control health care costs is to deny heath care to anyone with an existing heath issue (voucher or no voucher no insurance company is going to sell them coverage), and to deny health care to anyone who can't afford the price difference between his voucher and an actual insurance plan.

The plan you described would far worse, giving effectively no health care at all to anyone who has anything much more serious than a broken arm. You can't buy a voucher's worth of a surgery and go home. You can't cure a cancer worth of treatment.

It's the same reason the Republican proposals about "tax-free health savings plans" are ridiculous. Lots of people die without ever needing it, while anyone who actually does need it gets effectively no care the moment the surgery or effective treatment costs more than they've personally saved up. The whole issue with heath care is that you don't need it until you need it, and the moment you so need it... some drunk driver hit&runs you or you get some nasty disease or your baby is born needing surgery to repair a heart defect... then it's the rare huge bill all at once. One that can't be covered by a savings account, and which doesn't begin to be covered by giving everyone a voucher, unless those vouchers were pooled together as insurance payments.

--

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

Except it's not really roullete. Under the worst case, an HSA is still extremely affordable. Paying 100% for my own insurance, I have a $2500/year deductible. Given my Insurance premium of $100/month, or $1200/year. That means, worst case scenario, I'd be out $3700 before I can begin to save additional money. That's not really all that bad. I was paying close to $6,000/year under an HMO. I only make around $35-40k/year, depending on bonuses, and I find it extremely reasonable. So, any money in the account over $3,000, I would never need within a year. and that is to assume that I wouldn't be able to match any withdrawals from the account like I should. Any money I put in the account over $2500, I should never have to touch, it should stay in there and work for me. Like I said, over a few year period, I should be able to invest enough where the dividends exceed my yearly deductible. However. if that catastrophe happens, and I'm out my yearly deductible every year for 10 years. it still is feasible to put in enough to put me in that same situation, it's just going to take a little bit longer and take a little more discipline. Feel free to take a system where you pay far more year to year and particularly over a lifetime. I'm going to stick with this. The sooner you get more people on this system, the cheaper it will become for everyone. meaning even less risk.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stinerman]

Yes, it's quite a shock when you learn how it all works.

In 2009, I started working for a software company that has to deal with being able to bill to health insurance companies. There are no fewer than 75 different program options that have to be flipped on or off depending on the whims of what some insurance company wants to happen. For instance, many state Medicaid programs require that the dates of service on the claim not span a month. So if your claim says something like 50mg IV Morphine 6/15 - 7/14, it will be rejected as being in the incorrect format and they will refuse to pay the provider until the claim has two line items for Morphine, one for 6/15 - 6/30 and another for 7/1 - 7/14. And of course some of them will let you put ancillary supplies over a month, but not the main drug. Oh, but if the main drug is a compound, they want to see all the ingredients that made the compound, which can span a month...unless it's a TPN therapy, in which case just bill a per diem.

Most insurance is billed electronically these days, but yes, most hospitals, HME companies, and other large providers have armies of billers in the A/R department whose sole job it is make a decent guess at how a particular insurance company wants to be paid, transmit the claim, receive a cryptic rejection notice, and then figure out which T's they need to cross and which I's they need to dot in order to get paid. It is not the norm, but it is also not unheard of that for certain therapies, the provider won't even bother billing the service because the cost of having someone work the claim isn't worth the amount of money they'll get paid. The insurance companies try to make the billing rules as obtuse and arcane as possible to bill them so that the providers will do just that -- throw their hands up in disgust and not even bother asking them to pay for it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LunaticTippy]

You missed my point. Once anyone hits the deductible, there is no incentive to ration care until next year. This happens to everyone at some point. Hitting your deductible is not an outlier. I can't think of a good way to keep the incentive to ration care without allowing big expenses to be crippling. I guess some kind of asymmetrical copay might work if you fiddled the numbers, but when million dollar years are a possibility I don't see real incentives working out.

Avoiding preventative care is a temptation for everyone every year they don't hit the deductible. Should I get that mole checked? It is looking a bit weird lately. I did get it checked, and it cost me about $600 out of pocket. Next time I might be less eager to do the right thing, even if it might minimize total healthcare spending. This temptation to cheap out in the short term applies to everyone.

I don't see my HSA ever being self sufficient. I contribute the max every year and barely have $5k in there. At this rate I will have about $30k in there at retirement, but I expect my health care needs to increase as I age. I am invested in index funds within the HSA, it is configured for anything above the annual deductible to get funneled into the fund. If I get 7.5% that will be $2250/year at retirement. Numbers work better for someone who gets a HSA when they are 18, but many young people can't afford to sock away several thousand a year into a healthcare bucket.

I'm not missing the point that I am funding my medical expenses with my HSA. It isn't cheap, and my incentives aren't lined up very well, and I don't know why you can't understand my complaints.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stinerman]

Yes, that's actually incredibly good.

And the GP didn't say, but I'm betting it's that good because it's an HMO. HMO plans are a lot cheaper because they don't pay for anything but the doctors in the group.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[BitterOak]

So what you're saying is that he'll have to commit a more serious crime?

If he gets house arrest, all he'll have to do is wander outside of his house. Then he'll be in jail. Problem solved.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I checked quote a few links on that through Google, and all of them say it's about vouchers to purchase insurance. In fact once of the links I checked was Ryan's own website where he himself says quote "a voucher with which to purchase insurance".

Uh, so what's your point? I said that keying off of the word "voucher" to argue about the Ryan plan is stupid because its irrelevant and then you went to all that trouble to prove that it really is irrelevant? Congratulations!!!

The majority of people aren't sick and wouldn't need to use even a fraction of the voucher in any given year,

So bank it for the next year.

while on the other hand a $10,000 dollar voucher would have exactly ZERO VALUE for someone who requires a $40,000 surgery

What, you don't think people get denied treatments today because the cost of the treatment is too high? It doesn't matter if the reason you can't get treated is due to the lack of dollars in hand or due to policies in the system. You still don't get treated. At least with a system like this you can try to make up the difference. Good luck getting any insurance system anywhere in the world to go in for $30K on a $40K treatment that they denied.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[crhylove]

Fucking awesome. I'm so bummed I don't have mod points today.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

I'm totally not trolling here, but... Fahrenheit is SO much better for temperatures, at least as far as humans go for discussing the weather. As someone who has lived briefly in Europe and someone who lives here, I can say that the metric system is better for everything else (I still can't remember cups and pints and gallons sometimes when cooking). But Celcius SUCKS for telling the temperature outside. It is much more easy and descriptive to say "60s" or "70s" or even "lower 90s" (in Fahrenheit) than it is to say it in Celcius. You simply don't get enough granularity with Celcius, you have to say "27 Celcius" or "30 Celcius". And temperatures change a lot over the course of the day, so it is aggravating.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[shermo]

Isn't the counterbalance to this that a 'Prime Minister' has much less actual power than a 'President'? The titles themselves give it away.

At least, I heard that somewhere, and our own 'Prime Minister' has been criticized for forgetting that he's not a 'President'.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[peragrin]

3 times? my auto insurance is $60 a month. my health insurance is $300 a month, and I have a hefty co-pay to go along with it.

The average person making 50,000 a year is spending 5-10 of that on Health insurance.

The reason it is so high in the USA is because we overcharge for everything(everybody ). The USA spends about 5 times what every other developed nation does per person on Health insurance and we get less coverage for it.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

Okay, 3-5x. Regardless, the actual payout benefit is still many times above the premium compared to vehicle insurance.

Certainly it can get better. The main point, however, was that the "free market" does not exist in the insurance industry. Not even close. It's like blaming Lichtenstein for the way our government runs. It's a complete non sequitur.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[drsmithy]

They've been trying to pass laws which require citizenship validation. Its constantly fought and defeated because of morons like you who thing what actually is going on can't actually happen.

I thought it was constantly fought and defeated by the kinds of people who cut up their drivers license and think the census is huge conspiracy ?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[drsmithy]

Seriously, how does it benefit society if your local pub serves beer in half-liters instead of pints?

You lose the overhead of duplication in the definition and regulation of weights and measures standards ?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[kj_kabaje]

Don't be blinded by your hatred or your ignorance.  Though he was born into a Christian Scientist family, he vistited a doctor and accepted doctors' assistance, machine-assisted breathing and the administration of antibiotics.  He was killed be an extremely aggressive form of strep--a truly freak occurence and one you should perhaps pray never visits you or anyone you care about.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

Right, but statistically you're not going to hit that deductible, which is why the insurance companies charge the lower rate they do than in comparison to the HMOs. I'm much less concerned with the gorging people may do once they hit that deductible than I am the spending they do before hand. The vast majority of people do not hit that limit and are going to make smarter decisions with their money, creating a positive influence in the market. Is it a perfect system, no. I don't think it's possible to come up with a system where people only get the medical treatment they need when they need it, until we reach the age of body scans in the home, but that's part of why we hang out on slashdot isn't it. Avoiding preventative care is a temptation, but that's why insurance companies also include a free physical every year with your plan, in order to make sure that you do get yourself checked out some. Once again, it's allowing us as adults make our own decisions As far as the limit goes, personally I'd like to see it removed entirely, and this is part of what I've been saying about government meddling and picking winners and losers. I can see no valid justification for putting a cap on an HSA when you cannot use it for anything other than medical expenses and the second you pull money out of it for other purposes, you're taxed then.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[drsmithy]

I can think of some things we do OK, or at least better than the UK (such as not generally throwing people in prison for defending themselves from violent home invaders, unless they live in Illinois or New Jersey), [...]

The only examples of this "kind" of thing happening is when said person "defending themselves" did something that was most certainly not defense - like, say, shooting someone while they were running away.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

So you're going to make the entire nation's liquor-serving industry spend untold millions of dollars changing, just so the handful of people at the government weights and measures office can have a slightly easier time? Since Imperial units are all defined in terms of SI units anyway, just how hard can it be?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

Where? In NJ or IL, or in the UK? In the States, you might be right, though a couple of decades ago it was effectively illegal to own a firearm even in your own home in certain places, so that effectively makes self-defense illegal.

But in the UK, I've read over and over of instances where people doing anything at all to defend against attackers were sent to prison. One particularly ridiculous case involved an older couple who held some home intruders at gunpoint until the police arrived. The problem was that they didn't own a gun--it was a plastic toy gun that looked real, but the invaders didn't know that luckily. The couple was arrested and charged with infringing the robbers' civil rights or somesuch.

In several states, there is a "duty to retreat". So if someone breaks into your house, armed, saying they're going to kill you and rape your wife, you're not allowed to shoot them. You have to run away, yes, even though you're in your own home. The only way you might get off is if you flee to your bedroom on the 2nd floor, and the invaders come after you, and you can't escape the house at that point because your bedroom has no exit at ground level. That to me sounds like self-defense is effectively illegal.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[FrellMeDead]

My wife and I pay for our personal plan since I was laid off (cobra expired) and her employer doesn't offer health care currently for her position. So we end up paying around $600 /month with a $5000 deductible for each of us and then once we have reached the deductible amount 20% of the total after that. The plan we have isn't the one we signed up for but have you or anyone actually tried to speak to anybody in a health insurance company... completely pointless and many hours of wasted time. Different plan while in my 20's still because of surgery it cost me nearly $15000.00+ with insurance. I can see why the guy did it since starting at 30 years old and older the price per month increases and health insurance companies won't accept you. It gets even worse if you have any pre-existing conditions, which unfortunately I do as a result of some elderly woman not paying attention and speeding in a parking lot across the empty spaces (got nearly broadsided by that a**hole). So no matter what you get screwed, at least you get food/shelter/healthcare, etc. Obviously there are big downsides like being attacked/killed/raped/etc. So we're f'ed if we do and f'ed if we don't. Sometimes we just got to nut.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[drsmithy]

But in the UK, I've read over and over of instances where people doing anything at all to defend against attackers were sent to prison. One particularly ridiculous case involved an older couple who held some home intruders at gunpoint until the police arrived. The problem was that they didn't own a gun--it was a plastic toy gun that looked real, but the invaders didn't know that luckily. The couple was arrested and charged with infringing the robbers' civil rights or somesuch.

If you have some *actual* links to people being convicted for this sort of thing (without some other factor being involved), then that would be interesting. However, this is just hearsay.

As I said, pretty much every example of people supposedly being charged for defending themselves I've ever actually looked into, either wasn't really self defence, or the genuine self-defence was subsequently followed by something that could not be considered self defence.

In several states, there is a "duty to retreat". So if someone breaks into your house, armed, saying they're going to kill you and rape your wife, you're not allowed to shoot them. You have to run away, yes, even though you're in your own home. The only way you might get off is if you flee to your bedroom on the 2nd floor, and the invaders come after you, and you can't escape the house at that point because your bedroom has no exit at ground level. That to me sounds like self-defense is effectively illegal.

Except it's not. If you genuinely have to *defend* yourself (ie: the person actually attacks you rather than just talking), you're within your legal rights.

Retreat is pretty much always the best option (from a survival perspective) anyway.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[glodime]

A 12% annually compounded after tax return over 20 years is well above average for any 20 year period in the past 100 years.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[glodime]

An excellent list. I might have added something about how health insurance is sold on an annual basis. When compared to life insurance it is like 1 year renewable term insurance with no guarantee about the price for the next year.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[glodime]

medical field where people pay mostly cash for services such as ophthalmology or cosmetic surgery

Ophthalmology, with the exception of the parts (surgery and disease) covered by most medical insurance plans, is more about physics and diagnosis than medicine. I don't think that the part paid for out of pocket makes for a good comparison to the rest of the medical industry. There is a good argument for government subsidy for testing and purchases of eye glasses or contact lenses to increase the number of people who can see better and thus be more productive. As for cosmetic surgery, it is much more discretionary and unambiguous than the average medical service.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[evilviper]

Look up recission. Company provided health care is more expensive because the law is iron clad...

Private insurance is unregulated, so when you start costing them serious money, there's a 50% chance (that's not an exaggeration) they'll find some excuse to invalidate your contract, and leave you without insurance, when you need it. And when you look for alternatives, you'll find they will all decline to cover someone with an expensive illness.

If you can get a job, however, you can sign up for their insurance plan right away, and thanks to said iron clad laws, your medical bills will be covered, no matter what.

In fact the insurance you described is clearly just meant to be so abused... Getting those routine checkups, preventative medicine, and early treatment is VASTLY CHEAPER. A plan that doesn't specifically encourage you to go for that, is clearly putting themselves in a highly untenable position, and obviously a scheme to ensure they extract the most money from healthy people, presumably because they think they'll be able to weasel their way out of paying for the sick people.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RoFLKOPTr]

Of course, you can also elect to pay for it yourself. But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates. A single emergency room visit could easily bankrupt even a moderately well-off individual. And don't even THINK about having surgery unless you've got a mansion to mortgage.

People seem to forget that YOU CAN BUY YOUR OWN INSURANCE. You don't need an employer or the government to supply it to you. Kaiser Permanente's most expensive plan for me (age 19 in generally-good health) would cost $250/mo which has a $25 co-pay for visits, $100 co-pay for emergency room, $10 medications and everything is covered with no deductibles. That's their most expensive plan, and it's fairly affordable if you have a decent job and sure beats living with an ailment, bad free clinic care, or paying out of pocket for medical assistance. I think the cheapest plan is less than $100/mo, but deductible-based. There are options for everybody.

Why does everybody act like you can't get your own health insurance?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RoFLKOPTr]

The key issue is, he wants to stay in jail, so he'll plead not guilty, forcing them to schedule him for trial.

OR the DA could just refuse to prosecute him, and set him free.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Eivind]

Indeed, and it's one of those things it's hard to fathom if you're used to a more sane system. In contrast, here's how to qualify for full healthcare in Norway:

1) Be legally in Norway.
2) For a period (planned or actual) longer than a year.

If you fail to qualify, say because you're a tourist or an illegal immigrant, you still get basic healthcare, but not the full-spectrum.

That's it.

The interesting thing is that this appears to both work better, and be cheaper, than the US system. We spend less money on healthcare despite higher salaries for healthcare-employees, and we score significantly better on most healthcare-related statistics be it longevity or infant-survival or cancer-survival or doctor-availability or just about any other healthcare-stat I can think of.

To me, it seems a lot of the American debate is colored by knee-jerk reactions of the "that's socialist and thus EVIL" type.

That's a really dumb reaction, because the relevant question is not if a policy can be said to be socialist or not. The relevant question is if a certain policy in actual real world *works* better. For healthcare, that basically means providing the best possible healthcare to the largest possible fraction of the population for the lowest possible cost.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

Everything you said is true for the first two paragraphs. My sister and her husband (whom she met in medical school) are both doctors. She is a general practitioner, and he is a specialist (neurologist). Now that they've had their first baby, she is going to work part-time (which in medical terms is 40 hours a week), and therefore make less money, and will let her husband be the breadwinner to pay for both of their med school costs.

Whether it's the right path or not, universal healthcare will exacerbate the effects of that shortage.

There is nothing in your post to give any evidence of this statement. Nor do I believe it is correct. In fact, it is likely that a single payer system would pay less for specialists, which means that there is less reason for 70% of doctors to work as specialists. Anyways, there is tons of factors involved, but in any case I'd like to see a lot more evidence of why it would exacerbate the problem instead of making it better or not affecting it at all.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

Well, you're attacking the wrong target. Sure, specialists don't need $600,000/year, but you probably don't know what doctors do. I personally know many, including my sister and my brother. They work RIDICULOUS hours until they are 35. I mean, 120 hour weeks!!!!! That's crazy. Once they are about 30, they are working 100 hour weeks. They don't get paid real money (i.e. $150K+) until they are 35. By that time they have taken on $100K-$200K worth of debt.

The doctors who drive Ferraris are probably 60 years old and tend to be the specialists or plastic surgeons, some of whom are definitely overpaid. But the statement, They are getting those privileges on our backs is completely without merit. They work harder than 99% of the American workforce and are smarter than 90%. And that is not a hyperbole - how many people work 120 hour work weeks? How many people make it into med school each year?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[glodime]

That's an excellent description of a number of problems in the USA's healthcare system. But I have one quibble.

Insurance is the wrong answer for something so guaranteed.

Life Insurance works even though death is guaranteed. Health insurance could be offered for better terms than 1-year renewable with no premium guarantee. This is by no means "the" answer to the healthcare system's defects, but it would help as long as there is not a single payer system set up.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.

You are probably privileged. I can tell from the statements you made, about how when you're young you are on your parents and then you later have a career. This is the path of a upper-middle class person. And the part about federal government interfering with it is quite biased FAR towards the American political right... as you can see from this entire Slashdot conversation, many people want to interfere with it. Before you ask, yes I have great health coverage. And yes, I'm quite privileged, 100K/year salary. We're talking about people who AREN'T who we are.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

Ah, I knew it! You are quite privileged and biased. Listen to what you're saying from an outside perspective.

First of all, it's great that you are a hard worker and you were smart enough to be able to go to college. Not everyone is.

Two, you may have been able to get $100/month insurance, but that is not the case for most people. Read through the comments here, many people pay $400/month and some even have to pay $1500/month. That is for one person. You won't find many comments with a cost higher than $1500/month because that's out of the realm of affordability.

Give up the iPod and the frat parties and accept some responsibility.

That is what you think of the rest of the country who disagrees with you. The reason they don't have health insurance is because they party and buy superfluous things. That is what you want to believe, but that is not the real world. You aren't smart for being able to buy health insurance for $100/month, you are lucky. If you really can't put your brain around what I'm saying, think about this: All of the people who are dissatisfied with health care are mad about something... but if health care were really just $100/month, less than my cable/internet monthly bill, then they would be quite satisfied and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I just want to point out that the incredibly inflated costs for things like $50 aspirins that cost 1 cent aren't there because hospitals are trying to get rich from these schemes. They have to charge it to pay for the things like the people who come to the emergency room and don't pay.

It's similar to the fact that text messaging in the U.S. might cost $20/month even though the cost to the cell phone companies is negligible. In reality, it's part of their economics where the call to customer service is free to the customer but costs them $10 a call.

In other words, it's not a la carte because they can't charge everything a la carte. So they have to charge more for some things in order to pay for the others.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

Do you have health insurance?

You just made a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Even if he/she does have health insurance, and he/she is happy with it, it has no bearing on the problem at hand, which is that there are major problems with the U.S. healthcare system.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[glodime]

Christie has been working hard to effectively increase taxes on teachers, firemen, police, and other public employees, so he can afford the tax breaks previously given to the richest in the state.

I thought that I was the only one in NJ to notice that Christie has effectively cost the State budget well over $1 billion in revenue in the face of a temporarily depressed economy that was already limiting revenues while promising to revive the economy by permanently cutting compensation of government employees and cutting State support of local governments. All of the wealthiest communities are responding by raising property tax rates to continue paying local government employees. Others have no choice but to make compensation cuts and layoffs for valuable public services.

In essence he's passing the burden on to local governments and blaming marginally underfunded pension funds as a reason to cut expenses to pay for his revenue gaffs.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Dr_Terminus]

Its so darn expensive because hospitals have to subsidize those who come in without insurance with payments from those who do have insurance. So in effect, those with insurance are already paying for everyone else.

If there was a base level of insurance for everybody, a hospital could count on recouping some of their costs for caring for the indigent, and wouldn't have to charge such outrageous fees.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ConfusedVorlon]

Pray you never have a child with a serious illness. Perhaps muscular dystrophy, autism, cancer, or downs syndrome.

You well know that your insurance wouldn't help you for long then - certainly not for the lifetime of your child.

While we're at it - pray that you don't have a serious illness yourself. Perhaps early onset Parkinson or Alzheimer. If you do, you'll find the $150/month days don't last long.

The US system seems to work very well for those that don't really need to use it, but I'm not sure that is the ideal measure of success.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK no-one has to sleep on the streets any more because the we/the EU consider shelter to be a basic human right. As such if someone has literally no-where to live the government must provide a roof for them, and while the accommodation tends to be really shitty it does at least give them a chance to build themselves back up. Without a permanent address it is hard to apply for a job, and without showering and cleaning facilities it is hard to be presentable at an interview.

Despite the raving foaming-at-the-mouth rants of the Daily Mail et al. we are actually quite progressive in this country.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[AmiMoJo]

It would work if everyone is paying for their own healthcare with their own money. Everyone thinks "this treatment costs X and the benefit is Y, do I want it?".

Let's see, I am dying of cancer, do I want treatment that costs X? Everyone will say yes, so the question becomes "Can I afford not to die slowly and in pain?"

What we have instead is NOT even, "I pay a fixed amount to some health insurance company. Then I get to the all-you-can-eat buffet of healthcare". First problem, everyone feels entitled to Lexus level care because they have paid the premium. Second most wont buy insurance till they are sick.

The way we do it in the UK is that everyone pay national insurance tax out of their wages. It is mandatory even if you have your own private heathcare (it actually covers more than just health, e.g. state pensions). With the money we run the National Health Service (NHS) which is supposed to treat everyone equally and fairly. Of course like any large organisation it never quite lives up to that principal but it is still much better than everyone only receiving what they can afford. Maybe we don't get the very best treatment but we also don't get bankrupted by illness and everyone, no matter how poor, is covered.

The vast majority of people benefit from this system. I know some people see taxation as theft but we see it as one of the things that makes our society and our country great. The NHS is one of the few things we can be proud of, because despite its flaws it is still better than what many other countries (including yours) have.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I agree with you, a tax funded single payer system would be the best option. I was replying to nschubach casting the points in terms he/she would understand. We preaching to our choir, and them preaching their choir will lead to endless chatter and no consensus. The same people who claim "taxation is theft, government never produces anything of value" jump to defend government spending on tourism promotion. We have to make them see the connection. That was what I was trying to do

On your first point

Let's see, I am dying of cancer, do I want treatment that costs X? Everyone will say yes, so the question becomes "Can I afford not to die slowly and in pain?"

:

I already made that point. Everyone wants a Lexus. And everyone will end up with monthly payments of a Lexus. Either we pay it or at some point for some treatment we have to do cost/benefit analysis. I would rather have the government with our elected representatives make that analysis, rather than private insurance company executives. The downside of elected reps making the decision is that they have very deep pockets and are motivated by reelection and votes than true cost/benefit analysis. This is the sticking point. Unless we have the collective will to say, "yes you need treatment X, otherwise you will die a slow and painful death. But sadly the society can not afford that treatment". If you cant bring yourself to say that, be prepared to pay huge taxes for healthcare.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[AmiMoJo]

I generally agree with you, but to pick up this point:

Everyone wants a Lexus. And everyone will end up with monthly payments of a Lexus.

That would be true if we all paid the same taxes, but higher earners pay more, and individuals are not the only tax payers. The majority get a better service than they pay for (which IMHO is a good thing).

Ah, unless you were speaking more generally about the overall amount of taxation.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

Actually, even Cuba has a much better healthcare system than the U.S. I'm not joking, go look for yourself at the numbers for life expectancy and infant mortality for Cuba vs. the U.S. if you don't believe me. Republicans will never let you know that of course, and the press is too cowardly to report it. But it's right there if you look.

Your national pride is a holdover from the 50's. The rest of the civilized world has moved well ahead of the U.S. in healthcare long ago.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

You want to know how bad the U.S. population is brainwashed? People *without health insurance* will show up to rallies to protest even the pathetic hint of universal healthcare (derisively called "ObamaCare" here). I wish I were exaggerating. They will actually show up with picket signs to protest a program that would help themselves and their families.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[elrous0]

Yes, you are definitely 19.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[LunaticTippy]

I think you are looking at it from a young and healthy perspective. In fact, everybody is going to hit their deductible more and more until age and failing health ensure they hit their deductible every year. So far I have hit the deductible twice, both due to injuries. If I don't kill myself biking or hiking someday I will need chronic routine expensive care.

I am around 40 and have a few friends that will hit the deductible every year for the rest of their lives. HSA doesn't help control spending for chronic lingering health problems (diabetes, heart disease, cancer)

It would be nice for health care to become more like other services, but it isn't there yet. It is impossible to get an estimate on what a medical issue will cost. If you call around to find a good deal, you have no helpful numbers to work with, either for cost or for quality. Doctors have no idea of cost or effectiveness when comparing treatment plans. I joke about how nobody would accept a mechanic saying he would try to fix your car, but couldn't give you any idea of how much it would cost, how long it would take, and you are paying for his time whether or not he fixes the problem.

I don't have any good answers. I liked the idea of high deductible insurance a lot better before I started getting old.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hobo sapiens]

I am calling you out as a troll.

I gave you a reply and you never bothered to address it, since it showed your statement to be fallacious.

If you have nothing better to do than serve as a shill for HMOs, why don't you get a hobby?

Defend the current health care system that you claim is so great and everyone should like. This time, try to use sound logic. You can't. It's broken, and so are you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[ShavedOrangutan]

You have health care and the complaints you have about it will be much worse after the government has taken over the insurance industry. And it will cost more. Whether the money comes from your checking account, your payroll taxes, the value of your savings, or debt passed onto your children, it's going to cost more than it does today. Especially for you, since you sound like a member of the middle class who will bear most of the burden.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[redemtionboy]

Perhaps that is the difference in our understanding. I'm 25, reasonably healthy, and have been investing into my account as much as I can, but I think that's also where we need to look at plans starting. What system is going to work the best for people their entire lives, rather than looking at the whole picture for every person right now. I'm not saying screw anyone over 30 or anything like that. I prefer to just open the markets and let people choose the best option for them. We can help those that can't afford a solution, but we need to work towards solutions that will perpetually provide a sufficient solution for all. What I'm talking about is building a system for the future, not just today. The changes are simple and forces nothing on anyone old or young. It is to just remove atrocities like the HMO act of 1973, provide the same tax benefits to individuals as you do to businesses, and remove the caps and restrictions on things like HSAs.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PingPongBoy]

For the list: doctor heal thyself

Seriously, isn't there a public fund to pay for emergencies?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[PingPongBoy]

I'll walk into a post office and rob them without a mask. I'll take all the money I can and run away

Creating jobs idea: installing security and selling pepper spray.

Thanks for raising the cost of living.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Shrike82]

I do hear this a lot from Americans, and while I can understand the argument I have to say that it's just a cultural thing. Europeans have no problem at all with temperatures being expressed in Celsius. You understand 60's and 70's (I think - obviously I'm not an expert) as being cold. We understand anything below zero up to about 5 degrees as being cold. You understand 90's as being warm. We understand anything above 25 (20 for us Brits but that's our microclimate for you) as being warm. If you'd grown up with it you'd understand, probably the same way I'd vehemently defend Farenheit if I'd been born and bred with that system. Either way, I can't see America abandoning Farenheit any time soon, nor as we likely to switch to that horribly convoluted and antiquated.........ahem........I mean delightful system. Vive la différence as they say.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

That makes no sense. I'm saying that there are a lot of them. Probably about 20% of the procedures we do are self-insured, and its not that rich of a community.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Most illegal workers are paid in cash under the table. There is no payroll tax.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

True, but how much *real world* experience does a gang banger from downtown chicago really have? White trash or black trash, you're still raised with the mentality about the Man keeping you down. Doesn't make a difference if its in a trailer park or the projects, you still never really see much of the outside world. They will try to make it about race but at that point its about history, trust, ability, and work ethics.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Oh yah, and the good will of helping people will totally fix the need for all those people to get paid. I mean, ambulances run on angel farts don't they?
Preventative procedures are encouraged in most plans.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

Ever heard of a life savings?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Kral_Blbec]

people have a right to not be exploited by their fellow citizens,

Does this include me having the right not to have to pay for your expenses? Cause according to every thing else you said, I don't.
BTW, I dislike medicare and medicaid as well. Don't use their existance to rationalize further expansion.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[hobo sapiens]

"You have health care and the complaints you have about it will be much worse after the government has taken over the insurance industry"
that doesn't mean the current system isn't broken. also, your point is a good one, glad you are not a troll. There is one single thing that undermines your point: the rest of the developed world has government run healthcare. And it works. Not perfectly, but it works. I don't think you could make the same statement about ours. it works OK for some people, and is completely busted for the rest.

It's easier to reform a system where everyone has the same universal plan. Currently, the US has a patchwork of health plans. Any changes to legislation under the current system has a ton of unintended consequences. If you have the same experience for everyone, then the repercussions are the same for everyone. This provides incentive to produce good legislation.

The middle class will pay for this because the current political climate in the US gives corporations and the very wealthy a free ride. If corporations and the very wealthy paid their fair share, then this wouldn't be a problem. You could ensure this by doing one thing, and one thing alone: impose a 14% federal flat income tax on EVERYBODY, corporations included. One exception: determine a poverty level for each state, and anyone at or below this poverty level pays no taxes.

I'd bet that universal healthcare could take a lot of the burden off the welfare system as well, maybe even make it obsolete. If you don't wanna work, you get health care so nobody here in the US is going to die from a lack of care. But you will need to work, since you need a home and food and clothes. In other words, the government will help keep you alive. But what you make of your life is up to you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Echoota]

In the US there is nearly a 13% chance that Hobo Spaien doesn't have health coverage. What is your point with this question, and how does it counter his/her's?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

The person I responded to said "The average household income in the U.S. is $31,000."

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

If young people paid a fair price, adding them to the system would not change anybody else's cost by one penny.

Instead we know that adding them to the system will reduce everybody else's cost.

I don't know exactly how inflated the price of insurance for young people is, but it's just a matter of logic to deduce that it is inflated. To me it's unjust.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

I don't see your point. If your commenting on the blogger's second hand account, I think it leaves out quite a few details.

I'm not, I was just searching for ER bills to show the breakdown between actual cost of treatment and the ER "universal coverage" tax that gets applied.

However if your point is that the unfunded mandate that is EMTALA is somehow justified because hospitals are able to recoup their costs then you are mistaken. As I said before, the hospitals do not fully recover their costs from emergency care. Even if they did, eventually the cost structure will reach a tipping point where absolutely no one will be able to afford any care from the hospital and hospitals will close.

Really, you think that the hospital would just shut down rather than reduce costs?

How would they reduce costs you ask? Well they could pay smaller salaries. US doctors earn way way way more than doctors in most countries... there are plenty of other people willing to do the job for less! Before they go to the incredibly drastic step of bringing doctors' salaries in line with other countries, they would probably do stuff like provide cheaper palliative care for patients who can't pay.

I just want to add that the hospital's red ink, if you are right, shows the lie about preventive medicine. Think about it.

1. The hospital is required to provide treatment which costs a lot of money to people who don't/can't pay.
2. There is a theory that widespread preventive care saves oodles of money by preventing emergency care.
3. The hospital could provide free preventive treatment to the subset of the local population served by the hospital that doesn't/can't pay.
4. By the theory of cost savings, this would actually save money for the hospital.
5. Hospitals are losing money and looking for ways to save. And there are plenty of good people working there, and they would like to also help as many people as they can.
6. And yet mysteriously they don't do it.

How do you explain that? It seems like the idea of increased preventive treatment under universal coverage eventually saving money is complete bullshit.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't think anybody on a tech website should comment on a medical doctor's salary. There are a lot of tech jobs that pay comparable to the doctor's salary and the doctor had to not only pay more for his/her education but spend more time in the educational system. I'm sure we'll see a downward pressure on their salary anyway, but the upfront costs needs to be addressed. Mostly by looking at the artificial scarcity of available seats in medical schools, and how much those institutions are allowed to charge for education. Oh wait... See what happens when you try to meddle with the cost structure? We introduce more governmental intervention. We get less governmental intervention if we eliminate all the redundant governmental medical insurance providers and consolidate them into a single universal care system where the only things the government do are pay claims and encourage preventative medicine.

How do you explain that? It seems like the idea of increased preventive treatment under universal coverage eventually saving money is complete bullshit.

All I see in your 6 points is that hospitals should eat the costs for America's health care. That is the only complete bullshit that I saw in your post. You haven't came close to bringing universal coverage in your arguement. Your logic appears to be "hospitals could save some of their loses by providing free preventative care but they don't" equates to "universal coverage won't save medical costs". Those have very little to do with each other. Most hospitals are not a government agency and are owned and operated by a trust or investors. They should not be tasked as the provider of free health care to those who can't afford it. That is the government's job. The government is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the american people in section 8 of the constitution.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[euroq]

I hear you about being used to whatever you grow up with... my point is, people who have used both tend to prefer Fahrenheit for saying what the weather is outside. Not just my own observations but everyone else I talk to. Well, this one Indian guy I work with thinks it's crazy that temperature can change 30 degrees in a day, but he still likes it better.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Martin Blank]

Population growth is outstripping the growth of active doctors in the US. There are only so many physician training programs available, and they can train only so many new doctors without a significant infusion of money to expand the programs. Even if this money comes along, the time it will take to bring the programs together will be on the order of a couple of years, and then it's another decade before those first students in the expanded program are able to start making a dent in the backlog.

I can't find it now, but I saw numbers from a group that represents medical schools suggesting that the shortage of doctors in the US will reach 40,000 sometime in the middle of this decade and exceed 100,000 in the mid-2020s. If I do run back across them, I'll post the link. One can take the numbers from what is basically a trade group with a grain of salt, but I've heard similar claims from other sources as well.

The reply above yours from fyngyrz suggested a 20% increase in the wait times and used 10-day appointment delays and 48-minute office waits as examples. These may well be the case where he lives, but my doctor in a suburban area, who is a bit more selective about taking new patients, still has at best a three-week wait, and my doctor before him had close to a month's wait for anything non-emergency. Showing up at the office wasn't an hour's wait -- it was often 3-4 hours' delay until even the nurse practitioner could see a walk-in. This doesn't factor in the ongoing decrease in doctors per capita.

It is a very complex question. I was just attempting to highlight one aspect of the list of factors, not claim that this was the only or even a main reason against universal healthcare. I'm not opposed to it in principal, but it's very easy to break the system worse than it already is if it's badly implemented. Should the Supreme Court rule against it, I don't know how it could be done.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[RoFLKOPTr]

Yes, you are definitely 19.

What, pray tell, is your point?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[erroneus]

I would be interested in seeing those disparities. I'm not quite sure the numbers will tell the whole story well enough. I know that several factors are at play when sentencing is handed down and among these are history, danger to others and likelihood of repeat offence.

There is a higher rate of imprisonment among black people than white people. What drives that? It could take a lifetime to discover the truth though it is tempting to simplify with a summary. But rather than focus on the "problem people" as it typically done, I think it might be more productive to look at what the others do that result in lower rates of conviction and imprisonment.

And the positive examples of black people in society are simply inspirational and proves that it is action, good judgement and good citizenship that leads to a peaceful coexistence in society. My boss is black and he's frikken awesome -- a driving force for making things happen. Things don't have to be the way they are. And it is not the action or reputation of groups that create the numbers we see, but the collection of individuals who individually make the choices and take the actions they do.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Danse]

Certainly it can get better. The main point, however, was that the "free market" does not exist in the insurance industry. Not even close. It's like blaming Lichtenstein for the way our government runs. It's a complete non sequitur.

The main point is that we, as a country, have determined that health care is a right. We don't turn people in need of care away from the emergency room. We treat them in the most horribly expensive and inefficient way possible, and pass the costs on to the insurance companies and the government, who pass it on to their customers and taxpayers respectively, so if you're a taxpaying insurance company customer, you're really getting screwed. If we would just go ahead with a universal health care plan that actually makes sense, instead of the ridiculous way we do it now, we could save a ton of money and end up with much better outcomes.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Fjandr]

The flaw in that plan is expecting a majority of Congress to do something sensible. They won't, unless it helps get them re-elected. Given that most states are red states, universal healthcare won't pass that test.

Judging by the last attempt, even those politicians who will get re-elected for supporting nationalized healthcare are incapable of doing it sensibly.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[rjstanford]

I'm young also and I have really great insurance paying $400 for my entire family. However, I recently filed a claim over something simple and it ended up charging me $400 for a simple doctor visit because of a loophole the insurance company found in the claim. Looks good on paper until you need care and realize that a profit organization will try to swindle their way out of providing service any way they can. Its very easy for me to sympathize for older and/or sick people. More substantial health care reform will happen in the next 10 years or so since the baby boomers will (increasingly) see how ugly our system is.

Did you buy that 1-on-1 from an insurer? I'm betting that you didn't. Blue Cross Blue Shield here in Texas is costing about $900 a month for a family, at group rates through a massive plan (Administaff). My employer pays for about half of that, I pick up the rest. And that's just two adults in our mid-thirties and one healthy two-year-old.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[rjstanford]

And if you have one serious accident that requires a major surgery, often running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then.... what?

a) You die
b) You get it anyway and enjoy the fact that other people end up paying for you (just as if you had had insurance) but you didn't have to pay for them (unlike the insurance situation).

Which would you pick? And how comfortable are you with that, really?

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[rjstanford]

The only trouble with those is that if your net worth is such that saving a couple hundred bucks a month on healthcare is significant, then paying 20% of even a moderate hospital stay (a major procedure and several days stay) will probably bankrupt you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Danse]

Judging by the last attempt, even those politicians who will get re-elected for supporting nationalized healthcare are incapable of doing it sensibly.

The problem with the dems is that they seem completely incompetent when it comes to framing debates and negotiating with the minority party. They could have pushed for, and likely gotten, a much better piece of legislation than what we got. Taking single-payer off the table before even getting started was just stupid beyond belief. Instead we have this thing that has almost as much bad stuff as good stuff in it. They left too many things as the status quo, and caved to the insurance industry far too cheaply and easily.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[cerberusss]

To be honest, this goes for a lot of things. For instance if I buy five really nice $150 dollar shirts, it's costwise better to go on holiday in china. Five shirts made there by a tailor, plus the plane ticket, will be about the same cost as five Armani shirts,

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[nickersonm]

That's only twice the cost of my internet. Or a bit more than I pay for food, and I don't particularly go for the cheapest foods. Or the cost of a higher-end cable plan. Or 18% of my monthly rent for a studio apartment in a college town.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Cwix]

WTF 350k back child support?!? Whos the daddy Bill Gates?

It would take me nearly ten years to pay that, if I payed every single cent I made for the next ten years. I cannot reasonably believe that 350k is a just amount.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Cwix]

That is if you never use the plan.

The second you start using it the co pays and the deductible increases start to add up.

Your nothing but a fucking troll, spewing your shit over and over again. Get the fuck over yourself and remember that not everyone is as lucky as you.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Dixie_Flatline]

I'm Canadian. I met a guy from Texas that told me about how liberating it was to go to a hospital in his state that REFUSED to take ANY insurance. You basically had a menu of items, and you paid, up front, for the treatment or test. They left you alone, and you could think about it.

It seemed bizarre that this would be the BETTER option, but his claim was that with his health insurance, it was literally impossible to know at any given time whether or not a procedure would be covered fully, partly or not at all. And because health providers that deal with insurance companies inflate the price to make money as best they can, and insurance companies are in the business of NOT PAYING so they can make a profit, there's a very real chance that you'll accidentally step into a treatment that not only costs you personally, but costs more than if you'd been able to go and get it for the REAL cost as provided by someone that doesn't deal with insurance companies.

The system is backwards, opaque, and DANGEROUS. These are people's lives we're talking about. American life expectancies are stagnant or dropping while other 1st-world countries are pulling away. As a Canadian, my life expectancy is actually markedly higher than my American counterpart.

The paperwork is LITERALLY killing you. Can you imagine? Paperwork, a leading cause of sickness and death in the USA.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Dixie_Flatline]

I made an effort a few years ago to switch to metric in my personal life. I find it a lot more relatable than the imperial system, now that I've worked with it a bit.

I'm about 78kg on a good day. 1kg is 1L of water. I could say that I weigh about the same as 39 2L bottles of pop. I can sort of visualise that in my head. 175lbs is the approximate imperial measure, and I have NO IDEA of how that compares unless I compare it to other people.

Similarly, I'm about 190cm tall. Visually, I can pick out something that's about a metre long. I'm a couple of those.

More relevantly, most buildings are built with imperial measures. Go to a cut shop in Canada and try asking for a length of wood cut to a certain number of centimetres. I did that, and the guy discovered for the first time that the saw actually had metric measurements on the back that he'd never seen, since he's always cut the wood to a number of feet and inches.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Dixie_Flatline]

"A lot"? Try "all". The USA has the HIGHEST per capita costs for healthcare, period.

The tragedy of their system is that if they switched to something like Single Payer Insurance like here in Canada, they could EASILY cover the costs of providing healthcare to everyone. They'd probably even save money.

Remember, the Single Payer option just means there's no BS surrounding the payment or haggling for the price. There's no overhead lost to reams of paperwork from dozens of different insurance companies all trying to get out of paying for procedures. There's actually lots of competition in the Canadian market for procedures that are considered 'non-essential' (dentistry, laser eye surgery, etc.)

The Canada Health Act is available online and is quite short and easy to understand. Our system is based on a document that's substantially less than 50 pages long and works pretty damn well. That US health care reform package was thousands, as I recall.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[monkyyy]

"I really wonder why do your representatives (you vote for them) don't believe it is."
i didnt vote for them, blame the the older generation for mine, also my emails get ignored

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[stdarg]

I don't think anybody on a tech website should comment on a medical doctor's salary. There are a lot of tech jobs that pay comparable to the doctor's salary

If by "comparable" you mean "able to be compared" then sure... as in tech salaries are much lower than doctor salaries so they are comparable. There may be a small percentage of tech jobs that pay a high salary, but compare median tech salary to median doctor salary.

I'm sure we'll see a downward pressure on their salary anyway, but the upfront costs needs to be addressed.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Considering that doctor salaries are one of the biggest costs of health care it's kind of important.

Mostly by looking at the artificial scarcity of available seats in medical schools, and how much those institutions are allowed to charge for education.

Yes, but tuition would come down on its own as more schools open and doctor salaries decrease.

Oh wait... See what happens when you try to meddle with the cost structure? We introduce more governmental intervention.

That's completely backwards, the reason there aren't more medical schools is that the government regulates them. To increase the seats available at medical schools you just have to make it easier to become a medical school, i.e. less government intervention. You should take a look: http://www.medicalschools.com/medical-school-accreditation.html

Now I *wonder* if there's a conflict of interest when the US gives complete authority over medical school accreditation to a panel of privately employed doctors who are keen to protect their own salaries.

We get less governmental intervention if we eliminate all the redundant governmental medical insurance providers and consolidate them into a single universal care system where the only things the government do are pay claims and encourage preventative medicine.

Yes we get less government intervention when the government increases the number of people in government programs and illegalizes private business. I'm not sure how to respond. Surely you see the contradiction?

All I see in your 6 points is that hospitals should eat the costs for America's health care. That is the only complete bullshit that I saw in your post. You haven't came close to bringing universal coverage in your arguement.

I did a little more research and some people ARE experimenting with the idea I've outlined here. Check out this article: The Hot Spotters: Can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande

Before you call it "complete bullshit" you should think about it some more! It makes sense, and if nobody does it there's probably a financial reason why.

Your logic appears to be "hospitals could save some of their loses by providing free preventative care but they don't" equates to "universal coverage won't save medical costs". Those have very little to do with each other.

Hmm... the first part is right. I'm not equating it to "universal coverage won't save medical costs" though. I'm saying, if proponents of universal coverage are lying or misleading about that, can you trust them with the other numbers?

I mean, it's a common enough theme and it's always touted as a major cost saver. Are you claiming that you haven't heard that before? Let me quote Obama:

[W]hen somebody doesn't have health insurance, they're forced to get treatment at the ER, and all of us end up paying for it. The average family pays a thousand dollars in extra premiums to pay for people going to the emergency room who don't have health insurance. So you'

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[DarthVain]

What an awesome quote!

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[CarbonShell]

Not to mention it is a slippery slope down to rock bottom.
You get sick, you not only have to pay for the treatment, you might even lose your job.
After you lose your job, you have less money for treatment and other necessities.
Thus you become MORE sick and less likely to get a new job.
In the end you are on the street.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[justanothersysadmin]

...go over to the DA/prosecuting attorney, and stab him with it. Take out his eyes if possible (he's a lawyer, he deserves it).

Defense lawyers are more likely to be the shady ones. Prosecuting attorneys are paid by the state and try match up a crime with its perpetrator and get a fitting sentence applied. Defense attorneys may be hired by the state (if you're poor and ask for one) or hired privately by suspects ($$$ ka-ching!!!) to try every trick in the book to make sure the charges don't stick, including "technicalities".

Taking gobs of cash to try to furnish a get-out-of-jail card irrespective of actual guilt or innocence? Yea, that gets me kinda riled up. Taking a gov't salary (peanuts in comparison to defense) for trying to ensure there is a consequence to committing a crime? Notsomuch...

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Grishnakh]

Taking gobs of cash to try to furnish a get-out-of-jail card irrespective of actual guilt or innocence? Yea, that gets me kinda riled up. Taking a gov't salary (peanuts in comparison to defense) for trying to ensure there is a consequence to committing a crime? Notsomuch...

Sorry, they're both bad. Prosecutors don't care about guilt or innocence, all they care about is getting a conviction, even if it means putting innocent people in prison. Remember the Duke rape case? Prosecutors only care about getting as many "wins" as possible so they can get re-elected, or move up to higher office, by claiming they were "tough on crime".

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Half-pint HAL]

I'm sure that's true, but there are also Brits who detest the quality of the NHS. My in-laws have good friends who live just outside London, and they voluntarily pay for their own health care, eschewing the NHS. They're not rich, they just feel the quality of the care is subpar, and they've said they hope America doesn't make the same mistake.

To make a profit for a paying service when there's a free alternative available, you have to be better than the free alternative. BUPA hospitals and clinics are a lot more pleasant than NHS hospitals and clinics and their waiting lists are a lot shorter. I personally felt that this was reason enough to spend about 600-800 quid on consultants' fees, x-rays and nerve conduction tests when I was suffering an RSI and the NHS couldn't offer me an orthopaedics appointment in under 6 months. I was in pain, and with a professional IT job I could afford it, so I paid.

But... I had the alternative, I had the choice. The UK two-tier system barely works, and it works for this reason only: the quality of care has to be better than the free option or no-one will take it, and the higher they price their care the more business they lose to the NHS.

Under the UK system, people like myself won't take out insurance, but pay directly for acute conditions. Insurance policies routinely have annual excesses and limits, and the annual limit usually specifies that all ongoing treatment for a specific condition is calculated against the allowance for the year treatment commenced. This means that many chronic treatments will default back to the NHS. Private Accident and Emergency wards (en-US: ER) are practically unheard of (2 in the whole UK, I think). The private market basically cherry-picks the good stuff, and the really expensive stuff is out of their hands, keeping costs down.

Really though, I don't think the real problem for US health care insurance is how it's paid for (private or gov't) it's simply that's its too damn expensive. There's no such thing as "free" health care, it's paid for somehow or other. There's far too much bloat and graft in the system, and having the US government -so well known for it's fiscal efficiency(sarc)- pay for it isn't likely to fix that, if anything, it'll exacerbate it.

One of the problems with the US system is the lack of direct payment. Insurance companies have certain obligations to their insurees, and once they're obliged, they've basically written a blank cheque. Any commercial healthcare supplier has a duty to its shareholders to maximise profits -- so they are effectively obliged to write the biggest number possible on that blank cheque. This means that insurance premiums rise, and that insurance companies (under the same duty to create profits for their shareholders) are pressurised to refuse as many claims as they can. So they created the infamous American insurance forms to try to catch people out. These forms are so time consuming for healthcare professionals that they have to employ extra administrative help, so their prices go up, and the vicious spiral continues.

So while the healthcare providers and the insurers are involved in this spiralling arms race, what happens to the guy with a tumour and reasonable life savings? He's nothing to do with this bureaucratic nightmare, so it should be pretty cheap, right? Wrong. Insurance companies never want to pay full whack -- they want a discount for being such good customers. So he has to pay more than them. But let's get this straight: this is not a discount. If the majority of your work is for insurance companies, the price they pay is your normal fee. The poor sod who goes in self-funding is getting an artificial mark-up on his price, so he's basically getting shafted just to keep the insurance company happy.

Regardless of the efficiency of central government in other factors, and regardless of any US-specific problems, the fundamental problem in private healthcare is the existence of shareholders. The main natural stakeholder in healthcare is the patient, but market regulations end up making the shareholder the prime concern instead.

HAL.

Re:Sad, but I can see doing it too

[Half-pint HAL]

Goddammit! I wondered who was to blame for the gold bubble!!!!

Sad state of

[TheRecklessWanderer]

It's a sad state of affairs that people have to resort to such drastic measures to get something that should be a right.

Re:Sad state of

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to realize that there are significant resources involved in providing the full range of sophisticated modern medical services to everyone in society. A social good, certainly, but no more so than other necessities such as adequate food and clean water which remain out of reach to many in this world. So I'd rather talk about it in terms of extending these necessities to those in need, or the duty of a decent nation -- rather than in terms of "rights" and (by extension) oppression. The oppressor here is Nature, not so much the health care system or the government.

Re:Sad state of

[sqrt(2)]

Then I have some really bad news for you.

You're ALREADY paying for all those people you are so don't like. Yes, it's true, you pay in form of taxes which cover ER visits that never get paid by poor people (who are often also unhealthy, go figure); you pay in the form of higher insurance premiums so that health care can be profitable (and because the pool of people is much smaller); you pay in the form of your business having less healthy employees; you pay in the form of a more dangerous society, as more people get pushed into crime because they cannot afford to care for themselves even working full time.

The jokes is really on you, because if you'd give up your ideological hatred for those people and for the idea that some social problems can be best tackled collectively through strategic actions by government, you'd end up paying less in taxes to cover Universal Healthcare than you currently pay for private insurance and all the unseen costs of having the terrible system we have today in the US.

I understand your frustration, but you're advocating a position that actually ends up being counter productive to your stated goals.

Re:Sad state of

[anagama]

Everybody does something that other people can point at. Are you a runner? I sure don't want to pay for your knee replacements. Mountain biker -- not fair to make me pay for your shattered shoulder. You like to go fishing -- why should I pay for your rescue when you fall overboard? Stay at home in a padded room to avoid all dangers -- why should I pay for your heart attack due to a sedentary lifestyle?

Basically, pick anything -- everything has its dangers.

Re:Sad state of

[stdarg]

The jokes is really on you, because if you'd give up your ideological hatred for those people and for the idea that some social problems can be best tackled collectively through strategic actions by government, you'd end up paying less in taxes to cover Universal Healthcare than you currently pay for private insurance and all the unseen costs of having the terrible system we have today in the US.

Okay so to elaborate on the smoking example.

Say a poor person smokes a lot. He doesn't pay taxes and is covered under Universal Healthcare.

Now how are your strategic actions by the government going to help me end up paying less in taxes to cover that person's lung cancer?

How does that compare to the savings of just saying "If you smoke you're not covered for smoking-related diseases unless you pay this extra smoking premium, and you chose to skip the premium and still keep smoking, so you don't get treatment?"

Re:Sad state of

[sqrt(2)]

Because universal heatlhcare or not, he will be treated. Right now, he gets sick and goes to the ER which you pay for indirectly. That's currently how we handle things. We could have been giving him preventative care which usually ends up being cheaper in almost all cases. And you can solve the smoking problem by increasing the taxes on cigarettes, and making the tax money be only or mostly used for funding the treatment of smokers. Have them pay for their own health care that their habit causes (and probably a little extra, subsidizing others who don't smoke).

I guess we could even save more money by kicking him to the curb when he shows up for smoking related illnesses and he was too poor to afford to pay taxes or buy insurance, but I don't want to live in a country that does that. Do you? I know there are a lot of people who actually would say yes to that, which is why there is an ethical divide about this topic that makes debate impossible beyond a certain point. It's not possible to have a real discussion about healthcare with someone who thinks it's acceptable to let people die who can't afford care.

Re:Sad state of

[TheSpoom]

Now how are your strategic actions by the government going to help me end up paying less in taxes to cover that person's lung cancer?

Because the US is (at least in theory) a civilized country, meaning that the person with lung cancer is going to be covered every time he goes to the ER anyway, as hospitals cannot refuse to give life-saving care. You're almost certainly paying more for the emergency care as they die than you would to give them the care they need to live.

If you are in fact arguing that hospitals should refuse life-saving care on the basis of a lack of insurance, you're a horrible human being.

Re:Sad state of

[geekoid]

Because ti's cheaper. You DO pay for that cost. People don't seem to get that.
Part of YOUR premiums? yeah they are for that? emergency room costs because cancer was found latter then if they had easy access ti a Doctor? yeah you're paying for that.

And yes, Driving is a right..or rather should be. The constitution clearly says the states are not to interfere with transportation.

If someone 200 years ago suggested the riding a horse is not a right, they would have been laughed at.

Plastic surgery is just a medical procedures. Sometimes it's used for purely cosmetic reasons "Nicer boobs' perkier nose, etc. It is also used for burn victims.

Re:Sad state of

[thesandtiger]

Smokers pay taxes. Why do you think the tubes of paper and leaves are so expensive? Smokers already pay a premium.

Everyone in the US pays taxes in one way or another - sales, income or otherwise.

Getting to the larger picture, let me explain to you why your point is a bad one:

Do you live a life of perfect virtue? Do you ALWAYS get sufficient sleep? Do you NEVER overconsume food? Do you ALWAYS get 30 minutes of vigorous exercise per day? Do you ALWAYS obey every single guideline for better health? Do you ALWAYS minimize or eliminate ANY risk of injury from any activity you do?

See - there will always be someone else who does one of those things better than you and that person would then just turn around and say "Well why should *I* pay for that stdarg guy who - you know, he doesn't get more than 6 hours of sleep a night, and he doesn't take his anti-oxidants and..."

Things work out in the balance. You might not smoke, but maybe you're heavy. Or you have crappy genes that will ultimately result in your body turning on you. Or maybe you're a little heavy on the gas pedal, or maybe you drink a little too much, or maybe you don't know how to relax or, or, or.

Smoking is a foul, filthy, disgusting habit, and one I am glad I gave up years ago. But despite the fact that I can smile and point to my moral superiority for not being a smoker any more, I am not so much a hypocrite that I can't see that there are tons of other things I do that are likewise none-too-good for my health, and I can extrapolate that to other people who are not me and say, "Gee, maybe I should cut them some slack, because I'd really hope they'd do the same for me!"

Re:Sad state of

[NMerriam]

Sure, you pay for mine, I'll pay for yours. Average it out over 300 million people and you've got a large insurance pool.

Re:Sad state of

[NMerriam]

It must be tough to live your whole life worrying that someone, somewhere is having something good happen that they didn't "deserve". And of course if something bad happens, fuck that person, they obviously did deserve it. got cancer? Fuck you, here's a free bullet, grandma. Go suck some dick in a back alley if you want chemotherapy. Also, we need tort reform so that grandma can't sue the company that told her Asbestos was safe to eat in her breakfast cereal every morning for 30 years even though they had proof it was deadly. I don't want ambulance chasers affecting my 401k.

Fuck you sick people, if you weren't such lazy and immoral people you'd be healthy and rich like me!

God bless America.

Re:Sad state of

[NMerriam]

go for walks? you could get hit by a car, that's risky. Don't go for walks? Not exercising is dangerous. Spend time outside? you could get skin cancer, not my problem. Don't spend time outside? You're not getting Vitamin D or enough activity, you'll probably have a heart attack.

Basically if you don't live exactly the way that i do, and make all the same judgement calls i do, you're clearly a crazy risk-taker or lazy bum who caused their own problems. My illness, however, is just bad luck.

Re:Sad state of

[Artifakt]

I don't want to buy a thirteenth aircraft carrier for a country that already has twelve, especially since the only other nation with even two is Italy, and I don't think it's rational to spend that kind of money just in case we get into a war with them again (Yes, I know we had a bit of a dustup with them seventy years ago, but still, I'm an optimist. For that matter, the UK has a single carrier, and we did fight them in 1812, so maybe the reason we have 11 deployed, 1 reserve and 1 in the oven is in case we have to fight England and Australia too while we're dealing with carrier owners France, Russia, India, Spain, Brazil, and Thailand, plus non carrier owners 'Best Korea', Libya, Afghanistan, Sealand, and the frelling Martians, all at once). No way going totally overboard on national defence should ever be a right. I'm not a paranoid idiot, why should I pay to humor paranoid idiocy?
Both providing for the common defence and promoting the general welfare are in the Preamble to the US Constitution, together. You're certainly free to argue that health care is not what the 'promote the general welfare' clause was meant to cover and so the promote clause doesn't imply a right, but I'd argue that we are at least eight carriers above providing for the common defence, as well as 100% outside of the provide clause in funding the war on drugs, and 80 to 100% over in many other areas lumped under Homeland Security. Every single person who supports overspending my taxes on defence has already trampled my right to keep my own income to help pay for my own health care. Every single person who supported taking separate tax money out of the Social Security and Medicare funds and making it available for the general fund to spend on such other things as defence projects has already trampled on my quite legitimate rights. I'd be comfortable with the government either just giving me all my non income related taxes back, or using those taxes where they said they would. Your position seems to rule out the pay it back into the system option, but that leaves pay it back to me, not just keep it for more carriers. So, what's your opinion? If I don't have a right to government health care, do I have a right to keep some money so I can buy my own? Or does the common defence clause have no limits, while the general welfare clause does?

Oh, and a plastic surgeon is one who restores function and not just cosmetic appearance. People who only do cosmetic surgery can't be board certified plastic surgeons - that takes them being able to do functional repairs, such as making a broken wrist joint have more range of movement, or applying skin grafts to fix major burns. The guy who removed my ex-wife's melanoma and transplanted skin from her abdomen to cover a baseball sized area on top of her head with it, then did three more minor procedures to eventually draw the hairline back into place, all while still leaving her able to move her facial muscles, close her eyes, and move her jaw normally, was a board certified plastic surgeon. Yes, he gave her back a good cosmetic appearance as well, but that was the most trivial part of what he did. He learned in Vietnam, repairing mostly limb damage, and can count over a thousand people where he at least preserved some parts of the damaged limb, and a thousand more where he successfully reattached hands or fingers, or got a full range of motion out of a rebuilt elbow, wrist, or knee.

Re:Sad state of

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

After severing a tendon in my finger, I had it restored by a plastic surgeon and enjoy full functionality of that digit today. The history of plastic (eg restorative) surgery extends far beyond the cosmetic surgeries of today. That's far more of an ending than a beginning. p. My point is that you should probably take ten minutes and educate yourself (it's really easy these days) before you post and make yourself look like a fool.

Re:Sad state of

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

True, but some are more predictable than others. The same actuarial tables that drive insurance premiums today can be used. There's a chance of needing a knee replacement when you're running, true -- but the over health gain of someone who stays in shape by running will typically outweigh the relatively minor cost of a single surgery and a few months of therapy.

I honestly no longer know if I'm a proponent or opponent of such a system. I used to be opposed to universal healthcare overall, but stories like this really make me think. When our country was founded... medical care wasn't a consideration. Some things were cureable, but most were not. Doctors did what they could - and if you couldn't pay, many of them would still do it anyway; or would do it on barter. This situation simply doesn't exist today - the small-town relationships that made it possible are now much reduced. (Ironic since there are so many more people...) Even in situations where it might exist, fear of law suits quashes it even further.

On the other hand, people who engage knowingly in risky behavior (smoking, obesity that does not have medical cause, driving without seat belts/helmets/etc) are now actively harming their community if they expect and receive the same care as those who do not. A lot of tough questions here.

It's easy to say "Well if you can't afford health care, die". But how do you reconcile that with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? As I get older - and even though I can well afford my family's health care needs - I find myself considering variations on this question more and more.

Re:Sad state of

[ShakaUVM]

>>Yes, it's true, you pay in form of taxes which cover ER visits that never get paid by poor people (who are often also unhealthy, go figure

No. EMTALA is an unfunded mandate that fucks hospital ERs over. Up to 50% of people don't pay their bills for ER visits (they don't have to, so why should they?) which results in the astronomically high health bills for people that are honest and can pay, as the hospitals go rent-seeking.

Hospitals fuck over people without insurance the most, since insurance companies will generally balk at paying $5000 for room and board on a newborn baby, as happened to a friend of mine. (Hint: the mom was providing all the board, and the 'room' was a cradle.)

Our system is great for people that work in large corporations and get their health care paid for, or subsidized, by the business as part of their employment. The poor and elderly are also covered. The people that get fucked the most are the working poor (that don't get health care benefits) and small businesses / independent contractors that are disallowed from the discounts coming from group health care plans. You end up having to buy individual health care, which is about twice as expensive as if you were part of a large group, and you can be disallowed from picking up coverage.

Re:Sad state of

[jo_ham]

Because with a Universal Healthcare system, even with the "edge cases" of people who don't pay taxes and yet get treated for expensive diseases like cancer, it *still works out cheaper for everyone* because of the massive economy of scale advantage of the system.

Even with Joe "unemployed but with lung cancer" Sixpack getting treatment "for free" (since he is not paying in), *you personally* are still better off, and you get all the same benefits as he does (ie, the same standard of care you get in the US right now, just for less money)

Re:Sad state of

[fyngyrz]

No. An insurance pool is skimmed for profit by the pollmakers. A tax-created pool isn't. That's the point. Remove the insurance companies and you reduce the skim, which in turn increases the amount available for care. Remove the parsing for the zillions of "uncovered" items and you remove more skim, and make MORE available for care.

It is long past time to make exclusionary health insurance a crime, and set up all-inclusive taxes[doctors[patients]]] as the working mechanism.

Re:Sad state of

[fyngyrz]

And you can solve the smoking problem by increasing the taxes on cigarettes

Just remember.... if taxes are too odious, the black market will take over. 100% guaranteed. Then the smoker pays nothing into healthcare.

The real answer is that there are outliers in both directions: really healthy people, and really sick people, self-caused or not. Aggregate the healthcare costs for everyone, and the outliers -- on both ends -- will be taken care of. It's the cost of a healthy nation, and well worth paying, even if it is annoying.

Re:Sad state of

[RoLi]

ideological hatred

When you get robbed, you might argue wether that is enough to hate the robber, but it's not ideological - it's just hatred of being robbed, end of story.

Re:Sad state of

[Rogerborg]

You've got the right to have me pay for yours, but if I don't have any means to do so, how are you going to collect?

All social programs rob the above-median to support the below-median. Whether either party is deserving doesn't enter into it.

Re:Sad state of

[stdarg]

I understand that the cancer patient will be treated in the ER, but explain how cost of cancer treatment is even related to an ER visit. Do you think there's a special cancer doctor in every ER that charges double his normal rate?

Realistically the setting makes no difference at all. They're admitted in the ER, then quickly diagnosed as having advanced lung cancer via an x-ray or something, then sent to the same old place they would have gone if they had made an appointment two weeks in advance and done everything without involving the ER.

So are you saying we'll save the cost of an x-ray? Like $150 plus some inflated ER visit costs? Out of a $150k cancer treatment we're going to save $150 in actual costs, maybe $1k or $2k total? And in the meantime pay for a huge bureaucracy to enable these savings?

Or are you assuming that in the magic world of universal health care, the smoker will still continue to smoke, but knowing that it causes lung cancer, he'll make frequent trips to the doctor to monitor his health, so we'll catch the cancer earlier?

To me that sounds like it would cost more. Read this: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/coi/pubs/II_5.pdf

To summarize the pdf, the first 3 months of initial treatment for lung cancer cost about $26k (this is in 1990s dollars). That would be the same, I guess, in both scenarios (I'm not a doctor, perhaps this initial treatment thing would be skipped if the patient were so advanced that they came to the ER because of complications from the cancer). The last 6 months (terminal stage) cost about $30k. That would also be the same in both scenarios I guess. The maintenance stage is $11k per year. It may be callous, but it's quite obvious that under the universal coverage plan where things are caught earlier, smokers will cost society more.

In conclusion, keep in mind I'm not saying they shouldn't be treated, I'm saying using a smoker with lung cancer as an example of how universal coverage will save on ER bills makes no sense at all.

Re:Sad state of

[Echoota]

Okay so to elaborate on the smoking example.

Say a poor person smokes a lot. He doesn't pay taxes and is covered under Universal Healthcare.

If the person is not paying taxes, they are either too poor to pay anything, criminal (based on my assumption that tax dodgers are dealt with), or alien; that's another discussion.

How does that compare to the savings of just saying "If you smoke you're not covered for smoking-related diseases unless you pay this extra smoking premium, and you chose to skip the premium and still keep smoking, so you don't get treatment?"

But going with the smoker example, you already pay for this person whether it's in hidden costs or covered formally by UHC. If they get a smoking related sickness do you really think they're going to stalwartly endure it and not eventually go to an emergency room?

It is no one's place to dictate whether healthcare is provided or not. Doctors who are in the best position to judge, as I understand, try their damnedest to keep a person alive regardless of cause. Or would you rather we not provide healthcare to an athlete who might be at risk of getting a permanent injury, how about a soldier who went to war, an emergency professional who is exposed to toxic substances. All these life choices also have known and provable health risks. Should we also offer only claused coverage to them, because there is a good chance they're going to have related health problems from what they're doing.

Try another perspective: What if after 20 years of smoking the person quits, and another 20 years later still gets emphysema? What if the emphysema occurs from another cause all together, how would anyone know? Should would still judge that person unworthy, and watch them die?

God forbid anyone make a wrong decision in life, right?

Using healthcare as a system of sticks and carrots is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but you are a citizen, so am I, so is the poor person who doesn't perfectly network job connections and loses their health coverage with their job, so is the drunk who smokes. I am not willing to dictate who gets coverage, nor should you be. There's simply no logical or moral excuse of why we can't cover our citizens universally.

Now how are your strategic actions by the government going to help me end up paying less in taxes to cover that person's lung cancer?

That person's cost of lung cancer treatment is spread across 250million people, not a smaller subset under any other "insurance" plan.

Re:Sad state of

[fyngyrz]

Yes, quite sure. My older sister used to bootleg; she did quite well at it for a while. Also, there's been a fair bit of it going on recently where I live (NE Montana), helped a bit by the price disparities between the reservation stores and the stores in non-reservation US space.

even without that, it's just a matter of economics: you create a margin large enough for someone to make a living at it, then someone *will* make a living at it. It's just that simple. So if they raise the price of [anything] by taxing it, that is, adding an artificial, non-production related cost to it, eventually you create that economic space for profit and you instantly have dealers, transport, etc.

Re:Sad state of

[sqrt(2)]

Taxation is NOT robbery. Only in the warped mind of a libertarian is taxation akin to theft. Most people can recognize that taxes allow for the foundation of a modern civilized society, and that the mandatory nature is necessary because people are short-sighted and greedy, unable to see the benefits that The State, even when run inefficiently, provides for them. Market solutions work in some areas, but not all. We can either do without those things, accept that they'll only be provided for people who can pay, or tax everyone and use a collective solution to the problem called government and taxation. The two systems compliment each other, and either will fail if a society chooses to rely on only one to meet all its needs.

Yeap

[ciderbrew]

That's the way to do it when you've got nothing. How awful must his life have been to think that prison is a step up.
I love the NHS.

Re:Yeap

[wiggles]

Just curious, what's the average annual tax bill per person to pay for the NHS?

Re:Yeap

[sgtrock]

From Gapminder.Org for 2006:

UK life expectancy 80 years. % of GDP spent on healthcare: 8.4%

US life expectancy 78 years. % of GDP spent on healthcare: 15%

In fact, the ONLY country in the world who spends more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than the US is Timor-Leste at 16%. Most of the so-called 'socialist' medical plans are MUCH MUCH cheaper than the US and provide FAR better results. In fact, Every. Single. Country. who has a longer life expectancy than the US has a nationalized healthcare system that costs much less than ours. Why the HELL aren't the Dems hammering on this point?

Posted by a somewhat bitter US citizen who knows the answer but still doesn't like it. :-(

Re:Yeap

[shish]

A minute on google can't find a specific number, but taking the total NHS spending bill and dividing by the population of the UK it comes out at ~£800 per person per year (about $1300). So $110 per month for an average person. Someone higher in the thread said that as a healthy young low-risk individual their insurance was tiny, only $150 per month, and several older higher-risk people said they were lucky to be that low -- so going by these napkin-numbers, we in the UK have it pretty good.

Re:Yeap

[Multiplet_Higgs]

That's sort of hard to work out (it depends how what you mean by the average - the average of the taxed population or the average per capita, for example and the NHS's bill isn't separated off from the rest of it on your payslip). Interestingly however, it's probably less than a US taxpayer pays. According to the WHO in 2006 (latest figures I could find with a quick google) the US government spent $3,076 per capita, whereas the UK government spent $2,457 (using price purchase parity). For reference the total per capita healthcare (i.e. both public and private) was $6,719 for the US and $3,332 for the U.K.

Re:Yeap

[jc79]

Just curious, what's the average annual tax bill per person to pay for the NHS?

Have a look here. In 2009/10, the NHS cost £100bn (about $160bn). That's about 8% of the UK's GDP, and actually less a a proportion of GDP than the US spends on healthcare.

Yes, we get universal healthcare, free at the point of delivery, and it costs us less per person than the US system which, as TFA shows, drives people to commit crime in order to get treatment. Of course, health insurance companies don't make as much money over here, so maybe our system is the flawed one, eh?

Re:Yeap

[slater.jay]

The NHS budget for 2011 is about 115 billion pounds (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htm).
The adult population of the United Kingdom is about 50 million (counting people 15+ and over 65, and thereby probably inflating the tax base a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom)

Those figures suggest about 2300 pounds per person. It's probably a good deal higher than that--I expect there are fewer than 50 million distinct taxpayers in the UK. If you're going with the whole population of about 60 million, the price per person is about 1900 pounds.

Re:Yeap

[TheSpoom]

Why the HELL aren't the Dems hammering on this point?

"Campaign contributions" by insurance companies. That's the thing, in order to get universal healthcare, we need to enforce ethics rules that would eliminate the corruption in Congress and the Senate. In order to do so, we would need a majority of the Congress and Senate to vote for them...

Re:Yeap

[Anonymous Coward]

From Gapminder.Org for 2006:

UK life expectancy 80 years. % of GDP spent on healthcare: 8.4%

US life expectancy 78 years. % of GDP spent on healthcare: 15%

In fact, the ONLY country in the world who spends more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than the US is Timor-Leste at 16%. Most of the so-called 'socialist' medical plans are MUCH MUCH cheaper than the US and provide FAR better results. In fact, Every. Single. Country. who has a longer life expectancy than the US has a nationalized healthcare system that costs much less than ours. Why the HELL aren't the Dems hammering on this point?

Posted by a somewhat bitter US citizen who knows the answer but still doesn't like it. :-(

Saying America is not the best at anything is blasphemy.

Re:Yeap

[jovius]

Interesting metric

In Finland the same number would be 1254€ / person / year. (1806.35$, 1113.45 GPB). Basically everything is free for that sum, and you can always go to private health care services too as much as you wish (and get little compensation from the state too). It's also possible to insure yourself against all health care expenses, but that's something extra (practically all insurance companies offer some kind of version of it).

The total for healthcare in 2010 was 13,550 billion euros (7,6% of GDP), but state and counties pay about 48% of it (from taxes), so maybe the total in UK / citizen is less than you stated too. The biggest single contributor to the sum are companies and employers.

The total social expenses were 30,9% of GDP (54,95 billion euros) (healthcare, unemployment, housing, family/children, invalids, elderly etc).

Re:Yeap

[greg1104]

The economics of the US health system are as screwed up as you say, but you may have picked the wrong cause for your correlation here. Anyone who visits both the UK and the US regularly will tell you their life expectancy is shorter because the US population is so fat and out of shape. As an English friend who was visiting me here recently put it, "I'm the fattest guy in my village, and I feel like a bloody model here".

Re:Yeap

[wiggles]

I'm not asking as a percentage of GDP, I'm asking per-person.

Back of the envelope:

160,000,000,000 / (population of GBR) = $2585 per year, per person. On average, UK people pay an extra $200 or so per month in taxes for their health care.

Re:Yeap

[Kjella]

Every. Single. Country. who has a longer life expectancy than the US has a nationalized healthcare system that costs much less than ours. Why the HELL aren't the Dems hammering on this point?

Probably because it'll get worse before it gets better. Our system works because it's one system covering everyone, period. The US finally decided to take up one of the good sides - to cover everyone - but ignored the most important part, nobody's playing hot potato with the sick patients. It's not a game to get rid of the unprofitable insurance holders or deny or delay their claims. Patients with relatively small issues get evicted and so grow to having serious conditions because they lack treatment. In short, treatment is given on very different reasons than what would be medically and socioeconomically efficient. Right now the US is picking up burning hot potatoes and it'll be a wild shuffle not be the one stuck with them.

If the US was to get anywhere, like really get anywhere, they would have to nationalize basic healthcare, put all the medical insurance companies out of business - or at least into the much smaller, private extra care market that covers maybe 5% of the market. And that won't happen, the public support isn't there. Sadly I think the republicans got this one right where they want it, they had to let it happen but made it happen in a way that will fail spectacularly and so make sure the US doesn't try it again. That would at least be my prediction of where this is going as soon as the Republicans take over in 2012, unless there's been a major improvement in the economy.

The US unemployment figures are lying badly. What you should be looking is the employment-population ratio. In normal years it should be 62-63%, in December 2009 it hit a low of 58.2% of the population was employed, last month 58.4% in other words the US hasn't recovered at all. I don't think any president could manage to sit through that. And after they take over, the health reform is getting buried. Or turned into an even worse abomination to really drive the point home.

Re:Yeap

[mjs0]

Which is slightly less than taxpayers in the US pay just to fund medicare/medicaid, which partially cover only a fraction of the population.

Calculation: (figures as of 2009 from U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services)

Total National Health Expenditure (NHE) was $8086 per person

Medicare cost 20% of this, medicaid 15%, for a total of 35% = $8086*.35 = $2830

Which is roughly $235 per month.

So to recap:

• US: $235 per month in taxes per head to partially cover a fraction of the population.
• UK: $200 per month in taxes per head to cover every person in the country from cradle to grave.

Note: I can't tell whether the US figures include the additional taxpayer burdens of insuring government workers, medical care for those in prison (see...I'm on topic!), or medical expenses borne by the states and other non-Federal Government entities.

Oh and by the way there are many other hidden costs. Have those of you in the US ever looked at what the medical coverage part of your auto and homeowner insurance costs you? How about those of you in the UK? Oh wait...you don't have to pay that in the UK do you!

Re:Yeap

[purpledinoz]

The problem is that there's a vicious cycle of incentives that are working to screw the people. Politicians who want votes need money, companies give campaign contributions to politicians, who then have to pass laws that are in favour of his contributors. Then the politicians are hired into the board of directors as a reward. The media wants viewers for more advertising dollars, and there's no better way to do this than to scare the shit out of people. Nationalized healthcare becomes death panels and socialism (which I guess is a bad word in the US). The situation in the US is dire, and it will keep getting worse. Without a 3rd party, I don't see the US ever getting back on the right track again.

Re:Yeap

[RightSaidFred99]

Life expectancy is not a measure of medical care quality - it's a measure of life expectancy. A US citizen with decent health insurance has access to the best medical care in the world. Our stats look bad for social reasons and because the people at the very bottom get shit health care.

You get what you pay for. Our only issue is filling in the gaps - provide minimal adequate care for people who can't afford insurance. Like anything else, if you make more money you should have access to better health care.

Re:Yeap

[sgtrock]

Ahh, but your healthcare system includes things like, I don't know, education about nutrition? Clamping down on food additives?

I urge you to spend some time on Gapminder. Pick any two healthcare related variables that you care to name and I can pretty much guarantee two things: One, Gapminder includes them both so you can graph them over time and two, the US is not in the top 10. Heck, these days we're lucky to be in the top 25. In some cases, we're clearly going backwards.

For example, track maternal mortality rates to GDP/capita. Watch what happens to the US after 1980, then 1992. Two Republican Congresses take office. One stops the steady decline in maternal mortality, and the other reverses it.

Heaven forbid that we continue to follow the rest of the freaking world in improving young mothers' chances of surviving child birth! That would be unAmerican!

Re:Yeap

[hazydave]

Yup. I expected the Republicans to be idiots about healthcare. After all, they're well paid by the insurance companies, they're rich (and so, they already can afford it), and they can pull out the "don't trust the government" thing when it suits them. And ignore the terrible effect of employer-paid healthcare on every US business that's not an insurance company.

But it was the Dems who caved on single payer this time around, and they did that even before they got to the table with the Republicans. Both sides are for sale.

Re:Yeap

[emt377]

I'm not asking as a percentage of GDP, I'm asking per-person.

Back of the envelope:

160,000,000,000 / (population of GBR) = $2585 per year, per person. On average, UK people pay an extra $200 or so per month in taxes for their health care.

No, the total expense is $200/mo per person. That includes private insurance, country-club detox for pop stars, sports medicine for footballers, plastic surgery for their wives, etc.

Re:Yeap

[greg1104]

I don't think any amount of education is going to help americans be healthier, but I'm a bit of a pessimist about my fellow citizens so maybe it's not as bad as I think. I was making a mathematical observation about concerns with your choice of statistics for correlation, I certainly wasn't disputing your main point. Where this a live discussion, I suspect we'd be in broad agreement but in a friendly discussion of detail; I'd have already bought you a beer because I did like Gapminder. Or something healthier, if you wanted to be unAmerican about it.

The fact that there are other correlations to be found here is sort of reinforcing the only thing I was highlighting to comment on: there are a lot more factors going into this mess than just health-care spending. The %GDP/capita metric is particularly suspect, because the GDP itself has its own trends to be considered. I have a pretty good picture of that in my head for that from years of studying the stock market, and you really need to overlay the raw GDP on all this to try to extract out gross economic trends. If the GDP grows due to general US business trends, but health care spending stays the same, that will shrink the %GDP/capita even with no policy change. Some of the funny business in the 80's was due to that, and 1980 and 1992 were both in the middle of significant turning points for the country's economy (both exits from mild recessions lined up with major administration changes). Five years from now, there's going to be another discontinuity right in the middle of 2008 too that looks just like it, except possibly reversed due to the country's productivity shrinking. There's a whole second level argument here around things like how bad economic times make people less healthy, which wanders all the way from stress to food consumption, and that adds a whole new dimension to trying to extract cause and effect from this sort of data.

Any way you measure it, health care in the US is more expensive than anywhere else relative to the quality of care it delivers, suggesting there is a massive improvement in efficiency possible. But as a realist who has spent a lot of time learning how US corporations and its government really work, actually doing something useful about it is one of the most difficult problems I've ever thought seriously about a solution to. That and the IRS are just mind-boggling problems to unwind, yet both are central to why the US is run so inefficiently relative to the rest of the modern countries.

Re:Yeap

[Skuld-Chan]

I live in the USA and I'm a union employee. On my paycheck stub if you throw taxes and what I pay to Providence for healthcare (which is really a corporate tax at this point) it's a full 30% of my monthly pay. Most months I make about 2000 dollars.

I don't think taxes are that high in the UK.

Re:Yeap

[rjstanford]

On the offchance that this is a serious question, I actually ran the numbers a little while ago - I've lived in both the UK and the US and was curious myself. This is a cut-and-paste of something I wrote back in 2009, so some of the conversions may be a little off:

During the current debates a lot of people keep talking about how bad the taxes are in countries with "socialized medicine". Let's take the UK as an example. I'll compare the tax burden on someone making USD 80,000 and GBP 50,000 - I know they're not completely comparable, but its a rough note. I'm ignoring a lot of minor taxes/fees here on both sides.

The US individual pays $16,188 in federal income taxes and $6,120 in FICA/Medicare taxes. This gives them a take home pay of $57,692. Their employer also pays $6,120 in FICA/Medicare taxes, for a total cost of $86,120.

The UK individual pays £9,930 in income tax, and £4,258 in NI (national insurance). This gives them a take home pay of £35,812. Their employer pays £5,668 in NI, for a total cost of £55,668.

Let's convert those UK numbers into their USD variants at the same rate, just for fun:

The UK individual pays $15,888 in income tax, $300 less than their US counterpart, and $6,812 in NI, or $692 more. This gives them a take home pay of $57,299, $392 less than the US guy (only 1/2 of 1% less). Their employer pays $9,068 in NI, for a total cost of $89,068, which is $2,948 or 3.5% more than the US cost.

The big difference here, of course, is that the US employee still has absolutely no health care. Reasonable coverage for a single person in good health easily consumes that $3,000 difference - and that's ignoring any family obligations, what happens when they're laid off, etc.

Sad

[RazzleFrog]

It's a really sad story and statement about healthcare but I really don't see how this is Slashdot material in any way. The concept of committing a crime so that you can get some free meals, bed, etc. is incredibly old.

Re:Sad

[jdkramar]

but I really don't see how this is Slashdot material in any way.

Its under idle, anything goes in idle land.

Why bother?

[Kid Zero]

The DA should drop the charges. :D

Re:Why bother?

[Thiez]

Wouldn't that just force him to commit increasingly serious crimes to get the health care he needs?

Re:Why bother?

[demonlapin]

More serious crimes get you sent to gang-rape prisons, not county lockup.

Re:Why bother?

[hedwards]

It never ceases to surprise me just how OK Americans are with rape, so long as the person being raped isn't a woman. Perhaps before we start lecturing other nations about human rights abuses, we might want to remember that there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and only the most narrow minded of people would consider prison conditions to not be a part of the punishment.

Re:Why bother?

[Jibekn]

if hes facing death due to the illness, getting raped in order to live is something to think about..

Re:Why bother?

[geekoid]

For the record. I am an american, and I ahte the prison gang rape meme.

It's barbaric but the inevitably result in Reagan killing the rehabilitation programs and the new-cons succeeding in privatizing prisons.

SO now they are about warehousing with the minimal level of monitoring. It also has the side benefit of creating more prisoners which is exactly what a private prison would want.

Re:Why bother?

[TheCarp]

Add to that that, based on the stats in my state of MA, at least 40% of the people in there are there for drug "crimes" and petty drug related crimes (a category that studies have shown will be all but gone if drugs are legalized). Clearly the occasional prison rape is appropriate for such people right? I mean, they might have sold some pot or something!

Re:Why bother?

[Artifakt]

What amazes me is some people think convicts will give some kind of justice when the 'system has failed'. Hey, we put some of these people in prison because they preyed on the most vulnerable - now these people think they are going to rape a 240 lb. bodybuilding child molester and treat a 155 lb. beanpole who's just in there for writing bad checks as off limits to 'convict justice'? Why on earth is anyone able to write stupid enough to think a locked up, violent rapist is likely to pick his targets to further justice? Yet we allow it.

Re:Why bother?

[FatAlb3rt]

I can rest easy now that the blame for prison rape has been placed squarely on the shoulders of a Republican. At one point in Reagan's tenure was it invented?

[Insert Obamacare joke here]

[broginator]

I'm too lazy and apathetic to come up with one...

Sounds like The Onion

[Relyx]

When I saw this story appear in my feed, I thought it was an article from The Onion. My god...

Makes one think...

[Pollux]

Option 1: Pay $260 / month for a $1,000 deductible plan, and hope that I don't have to spend the $1,000 before health insurance kicks in the rest.

Option 2: Rob a bank. Get free health care!

Except, I wouldn't ask for $1 like this guy. The teller would probably just laugh and tell me to get lost. I'd demand $50,000. That way, if I manage to evade the police, at least I can afford health care for one year before I would need to rob the bank again!

Re:Makes one think...

[leuk_he]

Seriously... 50.000 dollar won't get you very far.

According tho http://www.doughroller.net/personal-finance/what-a-9-day-hospital-stay-taught-me-about-health-insurance/>This story 9 days cost 30.000 dollar..

Besides that, if you are going to lgo underground and be a bad boy, make sure you at least make enough money to retire immediately. Why go for 50.000 ? It is not that the ink of the pen is so expensive you cannot not ask for 5 million.

Re:Makes one think...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

That way, if I manage to evade the police, at least I can afford health care for one year before I would need to rob the bank again!

If your robbing a bank solely for health care then you probably won't be able to evade the police for long. You will have to seek medical care eventually unless you use the money to escape to another country with a better health care system. :P

Re:Makes one think...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Why go for 50.000 ? It is not that the ink of the pen is so expensive you cannot not ask for 5 million.

Depending on what number system you're using and how much attention you paid in school, of course. If you only learned as far as I, V and X, then writing $5,050,000 probably would be quite awkward.

Re:Makes one think...

[ShooterNeo]

Bank isn't going to have 5 million on hand unless it's a bank that has tons of guards that someone won't get past without multiple robbers and real guns. (and someone could easily get killed in the process, making the likely penalty decades or life in prison for any robber who gets caught)

The system always wins

[nedlohs]

With a growth in his chest, two ruptured disks and no job, Verone hoped a three-year stint in prison would afford him the health care he needed ...

But the charge of larceny, not armed robbery, is unlikely to keep Verone behind bars for more than 12 months

You can't win. Even the simplest of plans the powers that be manage to screw you over on.

Re:The system always wins

[CatsupBoy]

With a growth in his chest, two ruptured disks and no job, Verone hoped a three-year stint in prison would afford him the health care he needed ...

But the charge of larceny, not armed robbery, is unlikely to keep Verone behind bars for more than 12 months

You can't win. Even the simplest of plans the powers that be manage to screw you over on.

Yes but this guy cant afford a lawyer so a 3 year sentence could still be a possibility!

Re:The system always wins

[itsenrique]

Depends if the judge takes mercy on him, ironically in this case.

Dollar Menu?

[jdkramar]

Did the police return the $1 to the bank? Or did one of them pocket the dollar for his snack later that day? Better yet, do you think the bank is going to file an insurance claim? After all, they lost some unknown amount of business during the robbery, the insurance should cover that vague amount.

Re:Dollar Menu?

[hedwards]

If it's only a dollar, I've got a feeling that it probably just ended up in the evidence locker.

Re:Dollar Menu?

[box4831]

If it's only a dollar, I've got a feeling that it probably just ended up in the evidence locker.

That's a strange euphemism for "stripper's thong"

meanwhile in non-bizarroland:

[Thud457]

If there were any justice in the world, this guy would go in to rob the bank trying to get caught and end up getting away with $75,000.

Not a troll, just curious

[bradley13]

Not a troll, just curious: What keeps white males from getting on Medicaid? Clearly you mean some form of sexism/racism, but what form does it take?

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[pluther]

It depends on the state. Being white has nothing to do with it - it's not a factor. But many (possibly most? Maybe all, I haven't investigated most states) have different programs available for women, including pre-natal, post-natal, and breast cancer funds, much of which can be stretched to cover other things. If you go in for one thing, treatment may, in some circumstances, be extended to everything that could affect it. It's not always easy, and it's not the greatest, but it is, as the original poster mentioned, better than nothing.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure, but I've actually seen this happen myself. I have two friends who are epileptic to approximately the same degree. Neither can drive, and both have multiple seizures per week. One is female, she has no job, gets a check from the government (just enough to live on, and barely that), and gets medicaid. One is a white male and they have denied him for government assistance 4 times. He gets fired from jobs a lot for all sorts of retarded excuses, usually once they find out that he is epileptic (usually within the first two weeks). Since they're both in Texas, the law states that he can be fired for any reason so they don't have to make it look like discrimination.

It's really sad.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[cwgmpls]

The white part doesn't matter. The male part does. If you are a woman, you can get pregnant, which will qualify you for care -- at least until your baby is a year old. Until men are able to get pregnant, a non-disabled male will not qualify for medicaid in many states. The state will expect them to work, at least until the lack of healthcare makes them sick enough that they qualify for emergency care -- or qualify as being disabled

We could easily provide government-funded healthcare for those in need for the same price we currently spend on government-funded emergency room care and disability payments. That is the basis of all heathcare reforms in the U.S. in the past decade -- those started by Democrats as well as Republicans. The question is if anyone will have the political will to see those reforms through long enough that we can start seeing the benefits, or if politicians will disrupt the reforms for their own political gain.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Nadaka]

That isn't an issue of being white. It is about being male. Expectations and sexual discrimination cuts both ways at the bottom of society. Men are expected to succeed and work their way out of anything and will most often be turned down for assistance without regard to their actual circumstance. Women may get assistance, but they will be actively discouraged from getting out of poverty on their own.

I have experience with some of that. After my parents divorced, my mother got on welfare. They illegally counted student loans and tuition assistance as income, denying us food stamps, medical care, and rental subsidies. When she used those student loans to feed the family anyway, they tried to take away us kids for abandonment because she dared to seek an education instead of finding a new husband to support her.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Kral_Blbec]

Don't forget marital status. If your're married, its a little better.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Broken scope]

Yet, in my experience as a white, middle class college educated male, many things are easier for me, than they are for my friends from similar backgrounds who are of a different sex, a person of color, or someone who doesn't conform to heteronormative standards.

In my experience, when the system fails, many rather insulated white folks assume its reverse racism, when in actuality, it's because the system sucks for everyone. However they have two very flawed assumptions.

1: They believe the systems works in the first place
2: If they just do everything right, they will succeed.

I will admit that a lot of diversity training stuff is absolute shit, many of the teachers are absolute shit. Many people responsible for teaching the stuff don't bother to actually understand the issues in play. That being said, there are many people who take any suggestion that we still have issues with discrimination as a personal attack.

Of course, I'm not sure why I'm arguing this on slashdot. Many a user here it seems can't even wrap their heads around why street harassment is a problem.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[dkleinsc]

I know a lot of people disagree and think everything is easier for us, but it's not.

Here's why they disagree with you (assuming we're talking about the US): White men earn substantially more for the same work as either women or non-white men. They're much more likely to be hired and promoted than black or Hispanic men. Either that means white men as a group are substantially better at working than other groups of people, or there's some other factor helping them out, again as a group. In a similar vein, white men receive substantially lighter sentences than black men for committing the same crime, are more likely to be called in for job interviews than equally qualified black men, and are at far lower risk of police brutality.

There's a ton of research backing up each of these assertions. For instance, they sent out resumes for identically qualified candidates with names that sounded more white or more black (one report on it) and got significantly more interview requests for the white-sounding candidates.

It may not seem like you have it easier, but you do. You might not realize that you're taking advantage of your whiteness when you walk down the street in a nice neighborhood and a cop either ignores you or waves politely. You might not realize that you're taking advantage of your maleness when you convince your boss to give you a raise.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[s73v3r]

White men earn substantially more for the same work as either women or non-white men.

I can't speak for minorities, but the reason men tend to earn more than women is because men are much, much, much more likely to negotiate salary than women.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[FhnuZoag]

Thank god someone's sane around here. Holy shit, is stormfront invading or something?

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Jumpy]

Here is something scary I experienced...

My ex GF was kicked off medicaid because her son turned 18 or 19.(Can't remember exactly which) About 3 months into dating her. She is still now trying to get on SSI, which will automatically get her back on medicaid, because she says she can't work ever again. But for now she is employed under the table sometimes and in and out of mental institutions. So she just goes to the emergency room a lot and throws away the bills. Her teeth are rotting out. No insurance. Its sad that the state won't help her (N.C) but I also wasn't going to stick around for her decent into crazyness. I gave this woman thousands of dollars paying her rent and buying her food. In return she attacked me one day and lost out on my support system after that. Her Mom does help her some with work. I only dated this woman for like a year. Its not like we were married or something... When I first met her she had a job / seemed normal. But then she got fired. I guess shes been having mental problems long before I met her. Through all this the state pays for therapy and meds for her Psychiatric care. To you know, keep her out of the underfunded mental hospitals. But not for like, say cancer or an infection in her mouth. Um.. Why? In some states like North Carolina you are fucked if you need the safety net though... I think shes been denied 3 times for SSI. I NEVER knew it was this bad...

On the other hand... Check this page out:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html

I've seen some people in that same apt. complex totally game the system. But I guess they had no choice.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[HornWumpus]

I have an old friend/associate who gamed the system. Claimed to be 'mentally ill' but was/is just a fucking drunk. After being rejected he got a shyster and was in due course declared disabled (despite the fact he worked a job the entire time he was applying).

At the time I asked he 'don't you feel guilty steeling from those who are actually disabled': 'Hell no, my parents and grandparents paid into S.S. and unless I get mine now I won't get anything!' (Hows that for logic? He paid in fuckall.)

My follow up question/point 'Aren't you worried about the karma? I bet if you run this scam you will actually wind up disabled.': It took ten years but he's dying (I put it down to not taking breaks from his boozing to work the shit jobs).

Fuck him.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Fjandr]

government-funded emergency room care

I'd be curious to hear more about this. The hospitals in my area eat the cost of providing emergency care. It's part of their overhead, which is passed on to paying patients.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[cwgmpls]

In Minnesota, hospitals have social workers on-staff to shepherd uninsured people through the Medical Assistance application process. In Minnesota, even an un-insured patient who would not normally qualify for assistance may qualify if their condition is serious enough. The state isn't really interested in having seriously ill people drop dead on the streets. It is in the hospital's interest to get the patient qualified for whatever program is available, because any reimbursement is better than nothing. You are right, after any public assistance that is available is exhausted, the hospital has to eat any costs that were not reimbursed, by passing the cost onto paying patients.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Fjandr]

I'd say the incidence of the government paying for previously un-collectable emergency bills is a fairly small percentage of the overall un-collectable bills. Acute emergencies are a lot more frequent than chronic emergencies, if I don't miss my guess. Of course, that's based on personal experience, which may or may not be representative of larger patterns. I know several low-income people who have had hospitals charge off emergency visits, with no public assistance involved (by virtue of not being eligible). I only know one who is on Medicaid.

I find it odd that they would accept an application for assistance where the person is not eligible but for a serious, acute condition. Not disputing that's the case in Minnesota, but it definitely is inconsistent with the agencies I've personally dealt with.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[cwgmpls]

Whether the cost of emergency care for uninsured patients is indirectly passed to the rest of us by the hospital raising fees, or by the government raising taxes to pay for medical assistance, either way we all lose. No matter how the funds are raised, the price would be much lower if it were spent on general care on the front end rather than emergency care when the patient is seriously ill.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[cwgmpls]

In Minnesota it most often comes up in the case of non-residents. A non-resident is usually not eligible for Medical Assistance in Minnesota. But if a non-resident is about to drop dead from a medical condition, the state will pick up the tab. In addition to this, there are a large number of people eligible for assistance who never apply. The hospital works hard to enroll these people after they pass through the emergency room be cause it helps the bottom line.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[justin12345]

White men earn substantially more for the same work as either women or non-white men.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html

Not anymore, not everywhere.

It's also important to note in that article that the income disparity favoring young women decreased as they get older because they leave the work place to start families, not because they fail to be promoted.

My personal experience bears this out. Almost all of the women I know make more then the men I know, even though they come from mostly the same background (white, middle class, liberal arts degree). The women get a head start as they have equivalent skills, but are also physically attractive (the much older boss tends to be male). However unlike the men, many if not most of the women's primary ambition is to find a man wealthy enough that they can quit and raise children, so they tend to gravitate toward older men, particularly bankers.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Fjandr]

Interesting. I hadn't heard of any states that did that sort of thing before.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Cederic]

The women I know earn more than the men doing the same job.

In the UK on average male full time pay is higher than female full time pay. The study that discovered this (last couple of years) led to massive calls for corrective action so women would get paid the same as men.
The study also showed that female part time pay is higher than male part time pay for the same role. There was no clamour for equal pay for men working part time.

Meanwhile women get to retire at 60 while men have to work until 65, women still live longer, and yes, there are massive differences in healthcare for men and women.

I'm a big fan of equality. It would be great to have some.

Re:Not a troll, just curious

[Vanderhoth]

More then that, there is no reason women can't do what men can do physically. My younger sister just graduated from high school and is looking to join the RCMP. She's a goalie for Hockey, Ringette, and Lacrosse and is into rock climbing, boxing. She does P90X every day to keep in shape.8 years ago when she moved back to Canada from Scotland her and my younger brother were extremely over weight. Both lost a lot of weight, but the point is anyone can do it and there's no need to make exceptions because of gender.

O' Henry short story

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I think there was this short story by O' Henry, written around 1900 about someone breaking shop windows to go to jail for the winter every year. The Cop and the Anthem. http://www.classicreader.com/book/1757/1/

Re:O' Henry short story

[NMerriam]

Its not unusual in the north for homeless people to commit small crimes during the Fall so they can go to jail for the winter. The police really hate Fall.

Very sad

[DaMattster]

It is sad that basic human greed has put this man in this kind of situation. According to the article, he has a growth in his chest and two ruptured disks. In some ways, this was an innovative thing to do but it is a shame that wanting to live cost him his freedom. I had often thought of doing the same thing if forced into that kind of situation. The only mistake this man made was not taking enough money (he only stole $1) to keep him in prison long enough for treatment. The judge may not even sentence him to prison because the crime was non-violent - a threatening note was needed to make the whole thing legitimate. In fact, the man sat on a bench waiting for police to take him away. If allowed under law, the judge could probably give him probation because this was a crime of desperation, not calculated to steal a significant amount of money nor hurt anyone but to get this man the care he so desperately needs. This crime is so markedly similar to the homeless man that steals to feed himself. If RBC had any last shred of humanity left, it would ask for the charges to be dropped and get that man assistance. It would restore my faith in humanity. However, even if RBC did as I suggested, it certainly would not be out of altruism but the public image value. Banks are scrambling to gain an undeserved positive public image.

Re:Very sad

[Bardwick]

If RBC does give him assistance and drop the charges, why shouldn't I do it? Gas is getting pretty expensive, how about I steal 1 gallon and wait for the police? Should the gas company assist me as well? It seems like everyone is dodging the truth at the core of the matter. Life isn't fair and some folks get raw deals. The best you can do is the best you can do with the resources you have. Here is the hard shitty choice. You have 1 apple. 2,000 starving people in line. Do you give the apple to one person so that he/she lives, or do you carve the apple into 2000 equal parts and let everyone starve? The ladder is the only "fair" choice. Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before. It will suck that way until the concept of money is discarded ala some star trek fantasy world.

Re:Very sad

[citylivin]

"It seems like everyone is dodging the truth at the core of the matter. Life isn't fair and some folks get raw deals. The best you can do is the best you can do with the resources you have."

I am pretty sure he was using a resource he had, his freedom, to solve his problem. I wouldn't blame anyone in the USA for doing something similar.

You would have had him play by the rules and quietly die in the gutter? Fuck that! This is america isn't it?? seems like he was just taking an opportunity to rise himself up by his own bootstraps.

Also to me it seems like, regarding healthcare, everyone in the usa is getting a raw deal. I read a bunch of comments and people are happy to be paying *ONLY* $400 a month for their healthcare. I mean for fucks sake! If you think that is a good deal, I would urge you to look at some other countries that don't pay anything, or hardly anything for a flat rate medical care system. Except we don't call universal coverage a "good deal", we call it a human right or the natural order of things. We even take it for granted. The idea here is that one shouldn't have to make or take any kind of "deal" when it comes to their life!

Dealing for your life, doesn't that indicate the devil at work?

Re:Very sad

[Shados]

I'm canadian. The difference between how much taxes I pay and how much my wife (who's currently in the US) pays, is about 20%~ (and she makes 20 thousand a year more than me, yet is the one who pays less taxes).

The difference in absolute numbers come up to about 15-20 thousand bucks of difference in taxes, so 1200-1600 bucks a month. I wouldn't attribute it all to health care, except virtually everything else the state/government is responsible for is BETTER in her area, -except- she needs to have private health care (which, because of how it works in the US, is mostly paid by her employer).

The amount that comes out of her pocket per paycheck is about 50-60$. The cost that comes out of MY pocket for my complementary private insurance (to cover stuff the government doesn't pay, like dentist) is 65$/month.

So bottom line is, I pay more than she does for health care by a factor. 400$/month sounds like a steal compared to a LOT of countries that have universal health care, if you look at taxes and services provided.

Don't get me wrong, the US system is still f****cked up, because of the preexisting condition issues and what happens if you don't have a job. It is wrong on so many level that people have to do what the guy in the article did.

But yes, as a canadian, i think 400$/month per health care IS one hell of a good deal.

Re:Very sad

[batquux]

it is a shame that wanting to live cost him his freedom.

We all make this trade every day.

Re:Very sad

[Bardwick]

I would have him quietly die in a gutter? Where in the hell did you get that from my post? In his situation, I would have been the one robbing the bank. I didn't invent or inflict on this man any harm. I did not slip his disks nor create a growth on his chest (nothing life threatening btw). The fact that I exist does NOT make me responsible for this mans health. I have no problem with someone asking me to do more. I have a problem with people demanding that I do more. I have a problem with laws that require me to give more than I choose or go to jail. It's not going to be long before we are unable to help anyone at all due to perceived rights. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have the right to health care which will now be taxpayer funded. While we are at it, you don't have the right to electric cars (taxpayer funded), cell phones (tax payer funded), owning a home (taxpayer funded), etc... We are simply going to bleed ourselves into nothing, being able to help no one due to perceived "rights". Tax revenue 2.2 trillion. Budget 3.5 trillion. How you feel about what's fair or what's right is immaterial, politics immaterial, we tried, we're broke, plain and simple, end of story. Here is your 1/2000 slice of an apple.

Re:Very sad

[scot4875]

The issue isn't money. Once you understand that, the rest of your argument makes no sense.

In the US, as a percentage of GDP, we pay more than twice than any of these 'socialist' countries with universal health care, yet we have a lower life expectancy. We have higher infant mortality rates, and a less healthy population.

We already spend the money -- the problem is that we're not getting very much for our dollar. Your analogy with the apple would be more like "You have 4000 apples and 2000 starving people. Instead of giving each person 2 apples, we're going to give 100 apples to 35 people, half an apple to 900 people, and then just throw the rest away and leave more than half the people to starve."

--Jeremy

Re:Very sad

[Bardwick]

Holy crap I'm going to agree with you (to a point). We're less healthy because we have become lazy little gameboy sloths but that's just an opinion. Policy for the last couple of decades have been about how to divide up the apples as opposed to making it easier to grow apples. The United States is producing less and less every day. I do like your apple analogy more than mine though, it's a good way to put the current problem in context. The only problem I see looming is what to do when you've divided up everyone else's apples... It's something that we'll never agree to on a slashdot forum perhaps. It's a fundamental difference, neither one of us accepts the premise of the other.

Re:Too bad he couldn't wait...

[MozeeToby]

Insurance companies got exactly what they wanted out of Obamacare. As long as every insurance company has to follow the same rules, all they need to do is increase premiums and pass on the extra costs to their customers. Forcing every American to get insurance and no public option? And you think the insurance companies are against that?

Re:Hey, might make sense

[Sir_Sri]

If you're homeless you should qualify for medicaid, I don't live there, but I know a couple of people in the US on medicaid, and I know they're on medicaid because it has kept them alive and in good care.

Re:DUH

[rjstanford]

You can get immediate treatment at any hospital ER. You can not get ongoing, expensive, "voluntary" treatment without insurance.

Re:Hey, might make sense

[turtledawn]

One typically has to provide proof of residency for aid programs, which is difficult when you haven't got a residence.

What about other needs?

[mangu]

Think of food, housing, clothes, everything you need to live. Don't you have to pay for those? Then why should someone else pay for your health care?

The problem with health care in the US is not that you have to pay for it, the problem is that it's so expensive. It's expensive for several reasons, among which one of the most important is the tort law in the US which is totally fucked up.

People who sue doctors for medical malpractice can make the most absurd claims and the jury will still give them millions in damages. The result is that doctors must shield themselves by prescribing an array of unneeded tests just to prove that they did their best to diagnose any possible ailment.

Begin with tort law reform and health care reform will not be necessary.

Re:What about other needs?

[The Moof]

Think of food, housing, clothes, everything you need to live. Don't you have to pay for those?

Actually, we have plenty of programs to provide those as well if you cannot afford them.

Food? Food Stamps and WIC vouchers

Housing? Section 8 is specifically designed to assist low income housing. There's also those stimulus housing tax credits they offered when people couldn't afford their mortgages anymore (some had to pay back, some did not).

Clothes? Plenty of clothing drives for that (more apparent in regions with harsher winters). Government either pitches in by sponsoring, or offering organizations that run them tax breaks.

You could also argue that welfare money could go towards any of those as well.

However, your comments on tort reform are dead on. As a resident of Illinois (one of the worse states for medical malpractice insurance), I completely agree that the first step toward fixing any healthcare system in our country is malpractice tort reform. I feel that an acquaintance of mine put it best: "You expect a bunch of lawyers to fix tort law to make it harder to sue? Ha!"

Re:What about other needs?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Think of food, housing, clothes, everything you need to live. Don't you have to pay for those?

Not if you can't afford them, no. You'll get these things paid for you, either as specific items (e.g. UK's housing benefit) or according to your choosing out of an allowance (e.g. UK's jobseeker's allowance). You don't pay for healthcare out of an allowance like this because costs are not regular, steady, predictable and comparatively low.

(Of course, in the UK's case, you are entitled to NHS treatment without extra charges no matter what your means, though other countries equally successfully provide state healthcare while requiring the wealthier to make specific extra contributions.)

Welcome to the 20th century and the welfare state, America.

Re:What about other needs?

[thesandtiger]

People are not asking for health care to be free. People ARE asking for health care to be taken care of with taxes, as it is in most other first world countries.

Everyone in the US - legally, illegally, working or unemployed - pays taxes in some form or another.

As to your question about "why should someone else pay for your health care" - it already happens!!! Who do you think is paying for your health care when you get sick and only have to pay the deductible when insurance covers the rest? The other people who are paying for insurance. When they get sick, you're paying for it, when you get sick, they're paying for it.

And because insurers look for ways to cut coverage for people for any reason they can. A co-worker of mine was refused coverage for the removal of several cancerous skin lesions because she had been burnt in a house fire years back and the insurer claimed it was a pre-existing condition that lead to the skin cancer. She's fighting it, but she shouldn't have to, and what about the people who don't know how to fight it? What about the people who go bankrupt just trying to get coverage that they already paid for?

And there's also one other rather big reason:

Because we are a civilized people, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing so many people to go under because they had the bad luck to get sick with something expensive.

Re:What about other needs?

[geekoid]

Food stamps (EBT) is only good for people who have so little money, that they still can't afford health care.

Housing? Section 8. Again the poorest of the poor.

If peopleare using the EBT and Housing options, they will NOT have enough money for insurance,. If that had enough to meet all there basic demands, they won't get EBT, Housing, OR insurance.

Tort reform is pushed by insurance companies, and they often lie. The malpractice situation isn't nearly as bad as people seem to think.

""You expect a bunch of lawyers to fix tort law to make it harder to sue? Ha!""
Your acquaintance is an idiot. Lawyer wok for people, and the people with the most moneny are the one pushing for a reform. Have you looked at the suggestion? it's horrendous. Legal action is the only form of retribution most people have, and insurance companies want to remove it.

Re:What about other needs?

[kqs]

Excellent point. The only thing which could improve it is if it were true.

Factcheck.org says "limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent". As always they list all of their sources so you can check them yourself if needed.

I'm a big fan of reducing health care costs, but the only way to do that is to start with facts. Hint: Whoever you heard say "tort law is a big part of healthcare costs" is either misinformed or being deceptive; either way I'd treat anything else he/she says with a grain of salt from now on.

Re:What about other needs?

[tbannist]

Begin with tort law reform and health care reform will not be necessary.

Yes, because a 0.5% decrease in health care costs will fix everything.

Re:What about other needs?

[The Moof]

That was the point - people without the money to pay for those things have the government step in and offer assistance.

As for the problem with tort law, we're currently at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Nobody is suggesting we remove the ability for people to pursue malpractice. Right now, however, we permit the most frivolous of frivolous lawsuits without repercussion. Have you ever wondered why Illinois, despite having some of the more decent medical schools in the country (Loyola, UIC), have to fly people to other states for brain injuries? No doctor here is willing to accept the enormous liability and insurance that comes with practicing in Illinois because the costs are so steep as a result of that malpractice tort law. So, on top of having doctors leaving the state because of how screwed up the tort law is, emergency patients have the joy of paying for a helicopter ride to another state to simply get treated.

So we definitely need some tort reform. However, I don't think lawyers, especially the ones who made part of their fortune pursuing those malpractice claims, are the ones that will do it. Just like nobody would want the insurance companies to do it since, as you stated, they have a vested interest in it (just the exact opposite of the lawyers).

Re:What about other needs?

[anyGould]

Think of food, housing, clothes, everything you need to live. Don't you have to pay for those? Then why should someone else pay for your health care?

Personal answer: for the same reason the government pays for roads, schools, police, and parks - because healthcare is a communal problem that can be solved more inexpensively and effectively as a group, rather than making everyone buy their own.

Re:What about other needs?

[xav_jones]

However, your comments on tort reform are dead on. As a resident of Illinois (one of the worse states for medical malpractice insurance), I completely agree that the first step toward fixing any healthcare system in our country is malpractice tort reform. I feel that an acquaintance of mine put it best: "You expect a bunch of lawyers to fix tort law to make it harder to sue? Ha!"

All I know about the benefit of tort reform came from two US doctors -- both familiar with their industry -- who both said it would not amount to much difference, money-wise. I am all for tort reform on a matter of principle but I don't think it will fix the myriad of problems that is the US health care 'system'.

Re:DUH

[turtledawn]

Treatment for acute illness or injury, perhaps. But this guy has tumors - they're not just going to wheel you into surgery and the chemo ward on an emergency-admit basis.

Contact RBC

[DaMattster]

Everyone please contact RBC and recommend that charges be dropped and suggest that RBC has an unprecedented opportunity to help this man and gain favorable public relations time. Does this man really deserve prison? If you really think so, I suggest you are heartless. Go to http://www.rbcbankusa.com/communityinvolvement/cid-96942.html and click on the email link at the bottom.

Re:Contact RBC

[nedlohs]

You are a selfish prick.

A man wants to go prison and you work to deny him that simple thing?

Fuck you!

Alternate Ending

[RivenAleem]

A 59-year-old man has been shot dead in Gastonia, N.C., during a failed robbery of RBC Bank for $1 so he could get health care in prison.

Re:Alternate Ending

[h4rr4r]

Depending on his condition that might be ok. If you need Chemo, a swift end might be an acceptable alternative.

Re:Hey, might make sense

[Ephemeriis]

If you're homeless and have a serious ailment, it might be a sensible thing to do.

If you're homeless, you probably qualify for Medicaid.

It's the folks who actually earn an income that're screwed-over here in the US. Earn too much money, you don't qualify for Medicaid. But that cutoff is low enough that it includes all sorts of jobs that don't come with medical benefits, and don't pay enough for you to purchase your own health insurance. Which means you're screwed if you get hurt/sick.

Re:"a female teller"

[MurukeshM]

Simply the fact that the teller in question was (and probably still is) a female. But then again, does the fact that the robber in question is a man add anything to the story? What if it had been a man? He has already been caught, his name is given, so why state "a 59-year-old man..."? Why not just "a 59-year-old human being"?

re: $7,200/yr.

[King_TJ]

Well, yes and no. To be honest, this depends somewhat on your priorities. Since insurance is always a form of gambling, people find it hard to justify paying a big chunk of money for it vs. something where immediate and definite benefits are seen. (EG. If I buy a new car, I get to drive it home that day and immediately begin using it. If I buy healthcare, I just keep making payments but have nothing to show for them except the little paper card in my wallet, UNLESS I happen to get sick and need it. Even then, I don't know for sure how much I'll wind up paying and how much the insurance will pay until after it's all over.)

To say the majority of American families couldn't come up with $7,200 per year though? That's probably incorrect. More accurately, they wouldn't prioritize their health insurance so highly that they'd be willing to sacrifice what might be as much as 1/4th. of their total income for it.

Re: $7,200/yr.

[h4rr4r]

After food, rent and other necessities of that caliber I would wager most American families don't even have 1/4 of their income left.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"a female teller"

[Anaerin]

Of all the things to take exception to in this train wreck of a story, you choose THAT one? I've heard of attacking a story's reporting/wording to try and discredit it, rather than countering the actual story itself, but really?

So, let's handle your accusation, shall we? People who follow the news love specificity, need all the gory and inane details (for some strange, sickening reason). I'm reasonably certain, if they could have, the article (and summary) would have listed complete details of the teller's name, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, medical history, even her complete genome, if it was available/allowed. However, they did not have those things available, or weren't allowed to print them, so they released the details they have, and are allowed to print.

To answer your question, I would feel no different had the story read "a black teller", "a wheelchair-bound teller", or even "a male teller", as the teller itself is a relatively minor part of the story as a whole.

And, to turn things around, how would you feel if the story had read "An 18-year-old woman has been jailed in Gastonia, N.C., on charges of larceny...", or "a 72-year-old grandmother"?

Oh, and "Richard James Verone handed a male teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report" is no more or less ridiculous than "Richard James Verone handed a female teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report", or even "Richard James Verone handed an automated teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report". It's just a single word that gives you a smidgen more insight into the story than just "Richard James Verone handed a teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report".

So please, get down off the cross, other people need the wood.

Go abroad get 60k treatment for 3k.

[slmdmd]

Go to countries like India. For example, you will get a 60k heart surgery done for 3 to 10 k in the best of the best hospitals, add 1.5 k tickets + some for hotel. Success rate for heart is 98.5 % but if your surgery goes the other 1.5% way then you can't sue. Medicine is a practice, not a science, so risk is yours.

Because of the shits piggy packing on medicaid

[pizzach]

as free health insurance, I can't get a doctor so he can write a note that I had my leg amputated. It's the kind of thing needed for getting a prosthetic leg and the leg is needed for work. Something that takes 5 minutes to write. Fuck you world. I can't even get an handicapped sticker because of the nimrods who run into the hospital when they have a slight cough.

Re:Because of the shits piggy packing on medicaid

[h4rr4r]

How are they preventing you from getting a Dr to write a note?
I don't see what one has to do with the other?
Do you mean you can't get medicaid and should?

Better take a hard look at the statistics.

[sgtrock]

Spend some time on Gapminder.Org. The data is all pulled from publicly available sources so it's easy to independently verify what that site can show you. A short perusal of the site will quickly make it obvious just how much those of us in the US are being cheated by the big insurance companies.

Re:Better take a hard look at the statistics.

[LunaticTippy]

That is a cool site. Thank you for linking it.

Re:Better take a hard look at the statistics.

[redemtionboy]

Actually, it isn't really the insurance companies that are cheating us. If you look at their profits, they're nothing impressive. Instead it's a system that rewards the biggest contracts and names, not the best prices and service, that is sending prices through the roof. The insurance prices are just high because our system currently costs more.

Re: $7,200/yr.

[geekoid]

Medical insurance isn't gambling. You will need it.

More correctly, it's the percentage of there practical income, that matters. Food, housing, electricity, etc.

Suddenly that 1/4 becomes 9/10.

Added to that people seldom actually understand risk.

Re:"a female teller"

[Anaerin]

"Something Happened Somewhere, Maybe!"

For the love of god, USA...

[jiggerdot]

I've been following your president's admirable attempts at healthcare reform with quiet amusement (I live in Israel). The amount of debate your country puts in on this subject is utterly ridiculous. It's not hard - there are MANY countries around the world which have universal healthcare systems which function very well, without costing trillions of dollars. Why not copy one of those?

Here, A portion of income tax is simply labelled "health tax", and is budgeted towards health insurance. It is mandatory and progressive. The insurance is provided by one of several private insurers, who must comply with minimum coverage guidelines set forth by the ministry of health, and they may offer complimentary insurance (which is not expansive - to the tune of 50$ per month per person, max). The most important condition - They CANNOT refuse you coverage.

I honestly think it's a cultural issue - it would seem many US citizens simply can't get their heads around the fact that in a civilized society some services should not be operated for profit. Yes, it's limited socialism, but the cold war is over - you guys won. Get over the fear, guys.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[Shados]

If they had done it 20-30 years ago, it would have worked. Now though? Very, -very- few countries have a "healthy" health care system. They're all downward spirals, with growing health care costs across the world. Some still work fine, but i doubt it will last.

Canada's for example is seriously going out of control. The percentage of the budget that goes to health care raises with every budget, and less and less coverage is offered. Private clinics are sprouting left and right, and costs of "complementary" private insurance is raising steadily.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[geminidomino]

it would seem many US citizens simply can't get their heads around the fact that in a civilized society some services should not be operated for profit

This. Oh, so much this.

And you're absolutely right. You can even see it all over this story. Someone espouses universal healthcare, and some empty-headed twit pops up with "yeah, they should provide luxury cars/internet/Xboxes too!" as if that's a counter argument.

I reject any claims of a "moral society" that has no problem determining life or death by how profitable it is.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[spiralx]

Still rising no faster than the cost of healthcare in the US though.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[Shados]

Rising slower, but at the same time services are getting cut left and right. And its STILL rising anyway.

Close enough.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[spiralx]

It's rising because of demographics and the increasing number of new treatments; that's a global issue for healthcare. 100% coverage vs. 60% coverage for twice the price is still a win though.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[Shados]

I honestly can't figure out which country is is the 100% and which one is the 60%.

Having lived in Canada and in the USA, the options I see are: Garanteed coverage for life or death scenario (and even then thats borderline), and lip service coverage (and less and less being covered) for everything else, for a 20% tax increase, and hidden fees everywhere, vs actual, real coverage for a nominal fee to individuals at a huge cost to employees, with jobless people being screwed.

Neither seem very good to me. Neither is 100%, either.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[spiralx]

100% of the population covered. And your point about tax is a bit of a red herring, given that in the US health care is already a larger proportion of the tax burden than in every other country, and that's before you consider the extra cost of private health insurance. Certainly the US has better outcomes for some types of medical issue, but it has worse in plenty of others... and again, there's a large percentage of the population with no coverage, and you only have to read the comments in this story to hear stories from plenty of people who have "actual, real coverage" that let them down. Medical bankruptcies account for over 60% of all bankruptcies in the US, and three-quarters of those people had health insurance.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[Shados]

I agree its absolutely not perfect. Nowhere close, and i said that in my post.

My main point is that it sucks everywhere. The FEW -very, very few- countries where it doesn't suck right now, are starting to spiral down -too-.

And red herring or not, still doesn't change that when I moved from Canada to the US, my taxes went down by 20% of my total income, the cost of my private insurance (because again: even in countries with socialized health care, you often need private insurance) went -way- down (by 50% or so), and my coverage went way, way up (in practice, having had to use the emergency room in both countries).

And again, not to say the US system is better. It sucks ass for the reasons you mentionned. All i'm saying is that -all- the systems suck balls.

Re:For the love of god, USA...

[spiralx]

Canada is just one example of socialised health care though. In the UK for instance, private health care will get you a bunch of extras, but doesn't cover primary care at all (see the list of what it doesn't cover), as these are provided by the NHS - and it's usually the same doctors in any case. Which is why it's generally very cheap, and not many people have it - it's a luxury, not a necessity.

I don't know if you've seen it, but the Frontline documentary Sick Around the World's website has overviews of different health care systems from the US, UK, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland, and talks about the costs, benefits and problems with each.

Re:Sad, but more common than you think.

[PPH]

In the US where general hospital care is not available to the poor or homeless this happens.

Any hobo can wander into the public hospital's ER and get care. No questions asked. But that's not an efficient approach to providing care.

Mitt Romney's approach in Mass. was to find a way to extend some sort of insurance to everyone so that they could get inexpensive (and appropriate, timely) care at a clinic.

Health care costs are just out of control.

Because: 1. Hospitals have to recover their cost of treating uninsured hobos who wander in off the street (or are brought in, unconscious in ambulances). And 2. Health care providers lobby hard against pooled purchasing of their services. Where one buyer (who can't be bought off with hookers, blow, and medical conventions in Hawaii) might negotiate better prices.

Anyone else...

[MachDelta]

...find it extremely ironic that this man chose to rob a CANADIAN bank looking for free (ish) health care?
Too bad they

Re:Anyone else...

[MachDelta]

Too bad it cut off the rest of my comment...
meh.

Re: $7,200/yr.

[JobyOne]

I'm pretty sure the GP means $7,200 per year for ONE PERSON, in pretty good health. A full family could easily be twice that, or several times their income if anyone happens to have a chronic condition...like maybe asthma.

Try $20,000-30,000 to insure a whole family on the open market. Still sound like it's a problem of priorities?

Pull your head out of your ass.

Re: $7,200/yr.

[tbannist]

The median household income was $50,233.00 in 2006. That means 50% of people would be paying more than 15% of their household income to cover one adult, for the whole family, I'd estimate that amount would at least double. I'm not sure how many of the people in the bottom half of incomes could justify spending at least 30% of their household income on just health insurance. After all they also have to pay income tax, rent or mortgage, transportation, food and other expenses (like clothes, repairs, etc). Most people also like to spend at least a little bit on entertainment.

Income tax, rent, transportation, and food are all going to be more important to the average family than health insurance that they might need. Gambling on not needing health insurance is a better bet than gambling that you won't need to eat, sleep, go to work, or pay income taxes for a full year.

Welcome to Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

My appendectomy: $20 + $10 to get a cab ride to hospital (not emergency) My shoulder surgery: $20 Any visit? $20. May be a sucky country in many regards, but the health care is awesome. There are lines to non-emergency procedures, but you know what? You can buy insurance here too. I think the one I had cost like $2k / year (fat and smoker with genetic heart condition) and guaranteed any surgery within 2 weeks. Yeah, sure sucks with universal healthcare.

Re:Hey, might make sense

[geekoid]

and how do they contract you?

the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

is haiti, somalia

meanwhile, evil socialist countries like denmark, uk: they live longer than us, and pay less on healthcare, and are just plain happier and less stressed

universal healthcare is just insurance, that's all it is. there is no one who can opt out of healthcare because if you break your arm, we're not going to let you walk around with your arm dangling, we're going to treat you. THAT'S what makes it mandatory: simple human morality. you're going to hold it against your fellow citizens that we want you to be healthy. it's your "choice" not to be treated? or is it your "choice" to be treated AND NOT PAY FOR IT, freeloader? the freeloaders are not the stereotypical welfare queen, the freeloaders are the young "libertarians" who break their arm, go to the hospital, and then avoid the bill because they can't afford it!

why are some americans so fucking deranged on the obvious benefits of universal healthcare, and how "choice" is MORE EXPENSIVE, the REAL freeloading, and less healthy? who don't people understand the obvious?

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bussdriver]

nope. Americans are suckered by propaganda; its all about emotions and not about facts and results. Just like global warming, for too many citizens its about their personal identity as a conservative or whatever and they can't be what they want/believe they are (and what is best) if they hold opposition positions-- its like the issues were made part of the definition of what they are... and they have been and it has been done under their nose--- instead of having them define their group they wish to belong to they define themselves to fit within the group. Ironic they are also such individualists...

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

that's not an american personality failure, that's a human personality failure

otherwise you are correct

all we can hope for is reason and intelligence triumphing over emotional hysterical low iq dimwits. the problem is, corporate money has noticed that they can directly influence the opinion of dimwits with fox news demagoguery, and sway opinion and therefore law to protect their cash cows

the crazy part is the dimwits will argue against their own interest: cheap better healthcare. because it's evil SOCIALISM! aaaah!

the premium americans pay for their expensive inferior healthcare goes into media campaigns that keep them with expensive inferior healthcare. the corporate execs keep getting paid, so everything is fine

hilarious and/ or tragic. either way, it is our downfall

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

uh, stalker?: you need to get a life

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[geminidomino]

all we can hope for is reason and intelligence triumphing over emotional hysterical low iq dimwits. the problem is, corporate money has noticed that they can directly influence the opinion of dimwits with fox news demagoguery, and sway opinion and therefore law to protect their cash cows

THAT part is definitely an (not-distinctly) "American personality failure," though.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[rastoboy29]

Because they are easily fooled by big (huge, massive) insurance companies with very deep pockets.

It's not that hard to get someone to vote squarely against his self interest.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[Billly Gates]

The reason is simple. Many Americans (myself included) feel Obama's healthcare plan didn't go far enough and put the cost on me with a gun to my head saying pay or go to jail. With rent $1600 a month I go hungry. That angers me to no end. ... now I used to be married last year. My wife was a teacher and we had the best plan out there! If we switch to a universal plan my health care would suffer as a result.

So if you are in the top 25% than it is in your best interest to support the private sector. If you are in the bottom 25% than it is in your best interest to oppose any bill that does not ban private insurance outright as these leeches will keep lobbying to force you to pay against your will. That leaves 50% somewhere in the middle.

The US does have medicare and medicaid and they are TERRIBLE. No real doctors take them and they are next to useless. So Americans think of medicaid and losing their premiums and are afraid they wont see their favorite doctors anymore.

Add to this in the news of Canadians going to the US for health care because of the long wait in Canada and that scares that other top 25% who want to keep their premiums.

It is a horrible horrible mess. Most Americans hate the system, but it is so entrenched only a purge of the whole industry can cure it and that is too radical.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[RightSaidFred99]

It amuses me when the Utopians compare the US to tiny little countries like Denmark and, well, Canada or Britain even. They are small countries with an entirely different population dynamic. We have 300,000,000 people in the US. We have a much higher percentage of people who won't work. We have a huge, apparently encouraged influx of poor people into the country from our Southern border.

Making snide comments about how these wonderful EU countries manage it adds nothing to the conversation because it's an apples to scalpels comparison.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[purpledinoz]

It boggles my mind to no end, how the richest country in the world can have such inhumane healthcare. All while yelling at the Chinese for their human rights violations.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[fyngyrz]

I'm a libertarian and I am 100% in favor of universal health care in the taxes[healthcare[patient]]] model. Don't generalize. It just makes you look stupid. Thinking libertarians are considerably more interested in your rights and potential than they are in ignoring the fact that an educated and healthy populace provides the strongest basis for personal freedom. Libertarians are not anarchists. Stupid people are anarchists and some of them hide under every label.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[klwood911]

Why is everyone pushing universal healthcare? Have any of you talked with anyone from a country that provides universal healthcare? Everyone I have ever talked to says it sucks. You are either waiting in line to get to the doctor or you are waiting six months to get treated.
The only way to make insurance affordable to to make it cost money. This will stop people with the sniffles from going to the doctor all the time. Get a health savings plan and a high deductible insurance policy. Pay cash, negotiate with the doctor over costs to get the price down and have the high deductible to pay when there is a high cost issue (Transplant, bypass, etc.).
In turn, keep the physicians code that if you can't pay, they have to trear you anyways.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[jwhitener]

I don't think American's are any more susceptible to propaganda than citizens of other countries. It is just that we have so much of it because we have so much money. Transplant our corporations with their 10's and 100's of billions of dollars into a left leaning country, and in 20-30 years I'd be willing to bet that country would start looking like the US.

We've got to find a way to get money out of politics. No political ads by third parties, extension of libel and slander laws to political speech, set public funds for campaigns no donations, etc. I can't conceive of it ever happening though.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bmajik]

Have you ever met a libertarian who has done this? Who has tried to receive "free" emergency room care?

I never have.

I've actually been to denmark. Have you? _I_ wasn't happier there.

You can move to Denmark if you want to. Why are you insistent on fucking up _here_ ? If there is already a place that you like more than here, why not go there?

For me, there IS no place I'd rather be. People like you are making here worse _all the time_. Please stop!

Now then, there is a very simple answer to the freeloader problem: stop providing ER care. Yes, I am absolutely fine if there is no law requireing ER's to treat people. If you believe that people will just lay on the street dying, so be it. I'm fine with that to. I don't think that's what will actually happen, but I feel that is a more just outcome than what you are proposing.

All Compulsion is always evil, all of the time. You obviously disagree, but we should just be clear about the roots of our disagreement. I beleive voluntaryism is the only ethical approach, and the consequences of that are what they are. You beleive that if some particular outcome is desirable, it is fine to abandon any principle in pursuit of that.

I'm an idealist; you're a pragmatic murderer.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

agreed

shameful and disgusting, isn't it? how corporations trump individuals in this country, to the point of people paying more for healthcare, and dying earlier, for the sake of some company's bottom line

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

i understand this

your problem with my words aren't really with me, but how the word "libertarian" has been coopted by free market fundamentalists, social darwinists, and other assorted assholes

libertarianism, as defined historically, and as defined in other parts of the world outside the usa, is a very respectable word

the problem is the word has been hijacked in the usa by certain scumbags, and has been corrupted. the problem is the scumbags calling themselves libertarian, when, in the traditional sense of the word, they most definitely are not

the problem is only growing. i regret to inform you the word "libertarian" has been defiled

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

the danish live longer than us and pay less for healthcare

"You can move to Denmark if you want to. Why are you insistent on fucking up _here_ ?"

dude: WE are the ones who are fucked up, who are paying billions more for inferior healthcare. you have some weird idea of the usa being superior, when it is clearly inferior in the realm of healthcare

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bmajik]

My health care is kick ass and I've never had a problem with it. I've never had to wait to get whatever I like.

When my twins were born at 26 weeks I was very happy to be in the USA where even my small town of 100,000 people has a level 3 NICU.. and note that despite the CDC paper about infant mortality in the USA, _premature babies_ in the USA have better outcomes than anywhere else.

It's all very well and good for the Danish that you claim they are happy and pay less. Like I said - move there if you find it superior. It should be a pareto improvement for both of us: you get what you want, I get what I want (freedom from your bullshit)

Naturally, you don't address any of my points about ethics vs. consequentialism. The measure of "live longer and pay less" is not only problematic but is frankly irrelevant.

I am not ultimately concerned with metrics or outcomes, I am concerned with principles and ethics. Based on this and our previous interactions, you have none and so you find this difficult to understand.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

"It's all very well and good for the Danish that you claim they are happy and pay less. Like I said - move there if you find it superior. It should be a pareto improvement for both of us: you get what you want, I get what I want (freedom from your bullshit)"

no, sorry, see: it's my country, and i love it. and i will not let faux news propagandized idiots ruin the country i love. so i'm going to fight for it, for what is right and what makes sense, against the unintelligent brainwashed morons of the world. and we're going to prevail. because we have reason, sense, and facts on our side

"I am not ultimately concerned with metrics or outcomes, I am concerned with principles and ethics"

what do i do? laugh at this sentence? like i said: unintelligent. brainwashed. your sentence makes no sense

if a country has inferior healthcare (yes, it's inferior, despite any anecdote you have), at higher prices, something is wrong. something is wrong ethically, and something is wrong in the principles. why do you continue to defend an inferior, more expensive system? not because you know anything superior, but because you're stubborn, and proud of your ignorance, that's all

you need more facts, less ignorant attitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

those are the facts. argue all you want. fact: the usa gets inferior healthcare, and spends much more per capita. FACT, asshole. deal with it

where do they live longer and spend less? where they have universal healthcare. FACT, asshole. deal with it

so we are going to get to a superior financial, AND ETHICAL world, with better principles, in spite of your strideful ignorance. sorry, you lose. not enough corporate propaganda to remove functional braincells in me, and many others. sorry

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

wow, my very own pet stalker. i feel so important. i'm worthy of a stalker!

what do i do with you stalker? do you dance on cue?

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bmajik]

before claiming i am ignorant you should, at minimum, cite at least one thing i've claimed that is inaccurate.

I don't doubt that there are many people in the US who are unhappy with what they are receiving and what they are paying. But I'm not one of them. You plan on making me suffer further on account of someone else. That's because you're evil.

You have simply insulted me, over and over. I've made some claims about you that aren't necessarily insulting, although if someone said them about me, i'd be insulted. But you haven't addressed or attempted to refute them.

you cannot talk about ethics or principles without even stating what yours are, much less demonstrating any at any point.

I also don't see how my statement regarding a preference for principles over outcomes reflects brainwashing or stupidity. Perhaps you could explain it? Or is it the case that you are too busy typing "asshole" to think about what I might have meant?

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

"before claiming i am ignorant you should, at minimum, cite at least one thing i've claimed that is inaccurate"

that american healthcare is good or inexpensive. that is an inaccurate belief on your part. says who? says REALITY, not me: why don't you read the 3 fucking links i posted above, it's really easy to see

"You plan on making me suffer further on account of someone else. That's because you're evil."

currently, we do not turn people away when they show up with a broken arm at the hospital. that would be evil, right?

if they are young or poor, and they can't afford the bill, they avoid it. then the hospital is in danger of going bankrupt. so the government, your tax dollars, bails out the hospital

THIS HAS BEEN THE WAY IT WORKS FOR DECADES

paying for everyone's healthcare is ALREADY SOMETHING YOU DO. i'm not asking you or forcing you to do something you haven't done already for decades. WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. FOR DECADES. all i am asking is you pay for IT IN A MORE INTELLIGENT WAY

additionally, with insurance for everyone THE FREELOADERS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST WHO AVOID THEIR BILLS cannot exist, because they HAVE to have insurance. currently, people like you, who will not let intelligent universal healthcare happen, you are forcing ME to pay for people who don't pay their bills. therefore by YOUR DEFINITION OF EVIL, you are evil, right?

but i don't really think you're evil. you're just fucking stupid, because you don't see reality. a faux news propagandized sheep: corporate propaganda bought, paid for, spoonfed to your trusting, dimwitted mind, against your own self-interests

WAKE UP, moron

"You have simply insulted me, over and over."

yes, you have a right to complain about that, when you stop calling people evil, hypocrite

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

a freeloader:

someone who gets their hospital bill, and avoids it, as millions of young and poor do every year. then the govt, your tax dollars, has to bail out the hospital

WE ALREADY PAY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

FOR DECADES

morons like you are scared of reagan era stereotypes, like the welfare queen, while your intractable stubbornness to pay for healthcare INTELLIGENTLY enables millions of freeloaders every year!

blindness, stupidity, propagandized dimwitted sheep baying against their own self-interests while some healthcare exec makes a mint off your back

fucking pathetic, and worse, terminally STUPID

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bmajik]

I claimed that _I_ was happy with the care my family has received. Are you going to tell me I was wrong or lying when I said that? Really?

I also claimed that premature infants receive better care (and outcomes) in the US than in other countries. Are you going to attempt to contradict that?

Your points about me already bankrolling everyone else's care are roughly accurate. Which is I why I proposed ending walkin ER care. I'm tired of paying what I already do, and I don't want you making it worse.

Turning away people who cannot pay would be JUST, not evil. If people want charity, they should go to church and make great friends. If they want to steal from me, they better have plenty of guns -- like the government does.

I'm not forcing you to do anything.

Calling someone an asshole isn't helpful. I'm telling you that you're evil so we can have a discussion about your principles and values (which you seem to lack). Happily supporting the financial slavery of your neighbors is, I would say, evil. Since you appear to support just that, I'd say my criticisms are not hyperbole nor insult; they are an accusation you are welcome to refute.

Also, its very tiring to hear about how fox news and corporations are controlling me. I don't even have a TV, and my opinions of what powers corporations should have probably aren't going to win me any friends amongst corporatist America.

You are _assuming_ or _casting_ viewpoints and motivations on me which are incorrect.

It's very easy for me to explain why i prefer the curent system to a more socialized one. I'll break it down for you.

In any system of health care, there will be rationing; the needs of the ill will always be greater than the supply of care. How should the available care then be distributed?

Personally, I think it should be distributed to those who are willing to pay for it. Like me. Now, unfortuneately, we have all of this government and insurance nonsense screwing all of that up, so what I want only exists in certain corners of the overall health marketplace. Never-the-less, I've been satisfied thus far with my treatment.

However, with a move to "universal care" or greater government involvement, the rationing function tends to be less dominated by my money and more dominated by government bullshit or other arbitrary metrics. And I don't like that because it is coercive, it is arbitrary, and it punishes virtue and value instead of rewarding it.

Let me be perfectly clear: its not "his" fault if a guy breaks his leg and loses his job and has no insurance.

But isn't my fault either. And its not his former employers fault, it's not your fault, its not "the governments fault", etc etc.

As heartless as it is, the least amount of aggregate evil in society is when we dont steal from EVERYBODY to help one guy who had hard luck. Stealing is still stealing, even when millions of neighbors agree that its a fine thing to do. They're wrong. You're wrong.

But I've been down this road with you before. You have no principles, so you refuse to understand what I am saying. You think its fine for the government to go around assassinating people; you naturally think widespread theft is fine.

Don't ever talk to anyone about ethics or morality again until you can explain why stealing from me to pay for your care is just. I don't care if that's what's already happening some of the time. If you want to support the growth or solidification of that tenet of how health care should be distributed, the onus is on _you_ to justify the morailty of it.

Start with some principles and make an argument -- calling me an ignorant asshole over and over doesn't impress anyone.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[circletimessquare]

do you understand, moron, that you have been paying for freeloaders who avoid their bills, for decades? hospitals in the usa are always on the verge of bankruptcy, always bailed out. with your tax dollars. covering for the uninsured who avoid their bills because they can't afford them

do you understand that that is reality already?

you don't seem to

not much going on upstairs, huh?

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[spiralx]

I love my universal health care, as do all the other people above talking about the NHS. So, you're wrong.

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[spiralx]

What does population size have to do with the fact that the US pays more per person?

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[ajs]

is haiti, somalia

I get upset with Glen Beck for calling everyone he disagrees with a Nazi, so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admonish you for going hyperbolic on this one.

universal healthcare is just insurance, that's all it is.

The U.S. plan passed by Obama is just insurance (well, that's the largest part of it). But, that's not what universal healthcare is in general. There are quite a few different systems out there. I think it was Frontline that recently did a pretty good job of dissecting the British, German, Swiss and Japanese systems to compare the different ways that they provide healthcare. It's enlightening to actually see what these countries do and what works well and does not, rather than just listening to U.S. politicians dismissively refer to all universal healthcare systems outside the U.S. as "socialism".

PS: Ah yes, in fact, here's their comparison: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Re:the tea party and libertarian view of the usa

[bussdriver]

Yes, its human behavior right from my study of psychology which is why I'm so close to the truth (on the shoulders of giants...)

The reason Americans are to blame is because it is their responsibility. Drugs can make anybody do stupid things but that does not excuse responsibility for one's actions. Playing dumb (instead of just admitting laziness and being shallow) is no excuse from responsibility.

Neglecting CIVICS, history, and the philosophical underpinnings is what leads to this. Yes, a great deal of money has been put in to undermine competent democracy for generations. Just like Lord Voldemort, we have not put much effort into protecting the Horcruxes of our democracy... (I don't own a TV but even I am being impacted by the Harry Potter campaign and just think about it, a movie spends nothing compared to what goes into our politics.)

A fundamental concept of the US design is dividing powers and limiting the concentration of power. Its behind just about every design decision when 'programming' the system. One of the failings of succeeding generations is in allowing unreasonable concentrations of power. Today its not only the wealthy who have unwarranted power but The Corporation is now the dominant institution in the peoples' life (and it is not a democratic one.)

The basic process of falling into despotism is the same for democracies and Ben Franklin described our demise at the end of the constitutional convention. (We just edit out the negative end part of the speech, if we even learn anything at all about that history.)

Can't be a right

[geoffrobinson]

Health care can't be a right. I have a right to free speech. All you have to do is leave me alone. I have a right to free association. Just let me be and leave me alone. I have a right to believe whatever faith I want. Let me go to church and leave me alone.

I have a right to health care. Now someone must provide for me? Rights don't place burdens on others, forcing them to do something other than to not interfere with me exercising my right.

To broaden the definition of a right to include health care is to bastardize the meaning of the word.

Re:Can't be a right

[fyngyrz]

Fine. We have a right to free speech. We have a duty to contribute to an educated, healthy populace. An obvious duty, I might add.

Re:Sad, but more common than you think.

[geekoid]

You would die in a 5 star hotel.

The comparison between a modern hospital room and a hotel is absurd.

Irony anyone?

[ehud42]

Anyone else see the irony of robbing the RBC Bank - aka the Royal Bank of Canada (Bank) to get healthcare?

Re: $7,200/yr.

[xero314]

Medical insurance isn't gambling.

It is gambling in the exact same sense that craps is gambling. Most people will not get as much out of the insurance system as they put in. The majority of those insured will loose a little over a life time, and a rare few will benefit a lot. If this were not true then Insurance companies would be out of money rather than making large profits. The wealthy understand this, and it is why the fight against any public health care. Right now most of the wealthy people do not pay into any insurance pool. If health care was public then they would be forced to pay into the same pool as the rest of us. If you can actually afford to pay medical bills directly, then you would be foolish to put money into a shared pool that is priced specifically so that the odds are in favor of the insurance company rather than the individual.

The German system is about 40% more expensive

[Colin Smith]

I've used both, and live in Germany at the moment.

The UK NHS is about 10% of salary, the German insurance is about 14% of salary.

Having said that, the German system is definitely superior in quality. No waiting lists, better facilities etc.

There is a fundamental problem with both the UK and German systems though. They are percentages of salary. Credit increases at a far faster pace than salaries, (typically 9% vs 2%) it means that both systems experience funding crises periodically.

Re:The German system is about 40% more expensive

[CarbonShell]

Not to mention that the medication is WAY to expensive, anywhere from 50% - 200% then outside of Germany.
Thanks to the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Lobbies they basically dictate to the government what will be done.

FWIW I could do the private insurance thing but it does have major drawbacks. F.i. you have to pay for everything up front and then YOU have to get it back from your insurance. Also your family is NOT covered (it is in the public system, though let's not go into details) and (IIRC don't nail me on it) the parent with the most income MUST carry the children.

Not to mention the biggest drawback: The community paid into the public system and it covered me for most of my life, so I feel it is an obligation to do equal.
Dumb or not, that is just the way I am wired.

Re:The German system is about 40% more expensive

[CarbonShell]

One thing that should also be mentioned next do UHC is the unemployment insurance and poverty support, as well as employee protection laws which go hand in hand with each other. F.i. maternity leave before and after giving birth, state support for children. Also a total lack of the concept of 'sick days', if you are sick, you go to the doctors and they will write you off sick. For the first n-days (dunno exact time, could be around 6 months) the employee has to pay, after that the health insurance takes over, but then you only get a reduced income. During the first days you are also protected from most kind of contract terminations (i.e. getting fired).

You might become sick, but the government won't let you hit rock bottom and will protect you.

Re:stop it, please

[Your.Master]

1. While there are differences in circumstances, why on Earth wouldn't you compare the US to other countries?
2. Health Care is absolutely a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
3. Funny, I know you don't want to compare to Canada, but that's how the Canadian provinces handle healthcare, and the systems can be very different. At the federal level there is encouragement in the form of tax transfers to each province on the condition that they have some level of healthcare. Also, the assumption that it costs more tax money to implement public healthcare than to leave the costs up to the individual is understandable but unsupported, and the evidence (yes, from other countries) doesn't support it.
4. The US's healthcare bill may well have been worse than not doing anything; it was so crippled.

Repeal and replace

[smprather]

This is the new Republican health care plan, right?

What is profit?

[Kral_Blbec]

And how long do you expect them to continue if they never make a profit? What is profit anyway? Does the money just go in a vault? I always thought it paid the salary of the people working. You know, to give them a reason to work in the first place. Without profit, there would be no insurance company and everyone would be screwed.

Re:What is profit?

[Jstlook]

There's no reason in the world that *anyone* needs to make a profit at the expense of others. And no - profit does not pay the salary of people working. Profit is what is left after you pay all expenses. Salary is an expense.

I have no problem with a company making a profit. That is the entire point of corporate life. I have a problem with quality of life issues that exist solely because a company is only capable of making a profit on the services they provide at the expense of the same people that they serve.

I also have a problem with the average person who says we don't need a national health care plan because their insurance is better. More often than not, that person chose to work for a company that provides very good benefits specifically because of those benefits. They further neglect to consider the change in their final paycheck due to the cost difference that employers might not have to pay. (Admittedly, I'm sure many employers would simply stop paying the expense and consider it more profit - see above).

Furthermore, when I consider 1) how many people in American society today use the ER because there isn't another option for them, and 2) how much ER costs are inflated for simple things that could be fixed rather inexpensively otherwise (try just going to the doctor next time you have a problem, you may get in quicker), I really think that a real national health care plan would outweigh the costs associated, and improve tangential issues as well (Better quality of life in poverty areas, potentially less time on welfare, fewer absences in school due to health could improve education across the board, etc).

Re: $7,200/yr.

[darkstar949]

The 2006 median household income in the United States was $50,233, before taxes. That means that $7,200 is about 14% of the household before taxes.

Now factor in taxes which is roughly 21% of household income (married, filing jointly at 15% plus 6.2% FICA) and that takes out a chunk of income before you even see it.

When you consider that the rule of thumb is that you spend no more than 25% of your pre-tax income on housing that means for the median family income they generally are paying about $1000 a month on rent or mortgage. Depending on the market it might be more or less, but then the income would also be more or less, so it is a good number of illustrative purposes.

Thus, we are now up to about $2500 (insurance, taxes, housing) being taking up before the money is even in hand each month about $1600 left for everything else that you need to pay for. Granted that is enough for most people to cover the bills, buy groceries and the like, but it also doesn't leave much for savings which means that people tend to cut that in favor of other things. That in turn leads to how people find themselves in debt or living paycheck to paycheck without much margin of safety if something happens. Also, remember that health insurance rates have been going up the past couple years faster than most peoples salaries have been going up, although in some cases the companies are actually eating part of the cost of the health insurance on their end.

So, yes, to concede your point, it can be done, but on the same token, it doesn't leave the average family in a very comfortable position and they are very exposed if something catastrophic happens.

over priced medical device is where the cost is go

[Joe_Dragon]

over priced medical device is where the cost is going to.

But the system needs reform in all areas and that is not a quick fix the reform bill can be better but is a good staring point.

Doing it wrong!

[ThatsNotPudding]

According to the GOP platform, if you're poor and sick, you're supposed to die!

Get with the program!!

health insurance better off being catastrophic onl

[Joe_Dragon]

With the cost of doctor checkups being like $75.

In the past health insurance has more of a catastrophic thing and you payed out of pocket to see Doctors and more.

Now we have a mix of planes and lack of real price info on what the real costs are.

Reintegration -- a sop

[fyngyrz]

Sure they have programs to let ex-cons re-enter the society

These are sops; ex-cons are flat-out unemployable. Heck, even if you're *not* a con it's tough to find a job for most people. But if you are... you're done. You're never, ever going to re-integrate with society unless you have resources of your own that make getting a job unnecessary.

The US is in the active process of creating a permanently unemployable underclass, consumed by rage and resentment, with a constantly increasing pool of criminal skills. The next "war" will be against this self-inflicted injury to society, and you can bet your last red cent it will consume the tattered rags of liberty remaining to non-felons today... felons are just a little ahead of the curve.

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[elrous0]

Releasing the sex offenders in most states is the cruelest punishment of all. Most of those guys can't even legally live almost anywhere in the state. Saw a story a while back about a group of them who had took to living under a bridge because they couldn't legally rent any apartment in their city. Not much of a chance for those who legitimately want to go straight and lead a crime-free life. The state is basically guaranteeing that its released criminals will have to turn to crime, just to survive. If that's all that awaits them, the state shouldn't be releasing them (it's cruel to the prisoners and endangers the public).

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[fyngyrz]

Releasing the sex offenders in most states is the cruelest punishment of all.

This is primarily because the sex offender laws are almost uniformly ridiculous, basically a legislative expression of hysteria on the part of the media and those who drink the media kool-aid, and malfeasance and oath-breaking on the part of legislators.

While incarcerating them forever would solve the live-under-bridge and unemployable-class-membership problem, for most classed as sex offenders, it is wholly unjust -- and worse. Consequently, it is a very poor attempt at a solution.

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[Rakarra]

This is primarily because the sex offender laws are almost uniformly ridiculous, basically a legislative expression of hysteria on the part of the media and those who drink the media kool-aid, and malfeasance and oath-breaking on the part of legislators.

It seems like almost any law named after a child is going to be over-arching, sweeping, and amazingly punitive. See: Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, the Adam Walsh Act.

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[AmiMoJo]

Some countries have the notion of a "spent" conviction that you don't have to reveal to employers. In the UK we use them for young offenders and some classes of adult criminals, and in Germany it is actually forbidden for the press to mention past convictions that have been served (Wikipedia got into difficulties with that).

People complain that it is being "soft" on criminals but the alternative is, as you say, pretty much forcing them back into a life of crime because they have no prospect of getting even a shitty minimum wage McJob. In fact we go further by providing training and study opportunities to gain new qualifications, which again are condemned as offering prisoners something the rest of us have to pay for and then releasing them to take jobs that innocent people might otherwise have got, but it is quite an effective technique.

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[fyngyrz]

Sounds like civilized behavior to me, frankly. No more than that.

Re:Reintegration -- a sop

[anyGould]

If that's all that awaits them, the state shouldn't be releasing them (it's cruel to the prisoners and endangers the public).

It's also hypocritical - either the Criminal is safe to be around the public or she's not. If she's safe, then why are we continuing to punish them after their sentence is over. If she's not, why is she out in the first place?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

missing element for conviction

[ArieKremen]

To be convicted, prosecution has to demonstrate intent to commit a felony. Robbing a bank of $1 and declaring that the intent was to obtain healthcare while imprisoned will not suffice for a conviction.

Re:Hey, might make sense

[frozentier]

If you're homeless, you probably qualify for Medicaid.

Being homeless specifically DISQUALIFIES you for Medicaid, food stamps, or any other kind of benefits because you have to have a mailing address where they can reach you to be able to qualify. And to verify that you do, they will send you a letter to that address and if you don't respond, they cut whatever you are getting.

An awful lot of people are throwing around things like "probably", or "I've heard", but it's obvious from the majority of these comments that people are busy talking about something that they have no experience with nor have done any research about beyond things they've "heard".

Re:I call BS

[elrous0]

That pretty much pisses all over your lame argument.

Yeah? Try walking into an ER sometime and asking for heart bypass surgery, or long-term diabetes treatment, or chemotherapy. They'll be pissing all over themselves laughing.

This man.

[chibiskuld]

This man is my hero.

Re:DUH

[Guppy]

What an idiot... You can get treatment at any hospital.. with or without insurance...

The law you're thinking of, "EMTALA", guarantees evaluation and stabilization, that's all. For instance, suppose someone comes in with an acute bleeding episode, and is found to have leukemia. The hospital is obligated to treat the bleeding until the patient's life is not imminently in danger, and that's it. In this case, the underlying leukemia doesn't get treated unless the state has some unpaid care aid program, or the hospital is willing to eat it under charity care (some non-profits do, as far as their finances allow).

Multiple health care systems

[John Bayko]

The U.S has several health care systems operating in parallel:

• At it's basic, the it's a fee for service business, with distortions from the side effects of various laws, regulations, and other systems. One distortion is that I think all states require that providing emergency services cannot be refused - treat first, demand payment later. A lot of uninsured people get treated this way, and if they're too poor to afford insurance, they're usually too poor to pay. This means a lot of money is wasted on debt collection, and a lot of fees just go unpaid. All prices in a hospital are jacked up to cover the losses - so an aspirin tablet in hospital costs $10.
• The insurance system added on changes things. Insurance is usually too expensive for individuals, so it's almost always through employers. The main expense here is the hospitals and doctors trying to get payment. The insurance companies are adversarial, and try to avoid paying as much as possible. They will hire doctors to claim procedures are unnecessary (often as a rubber stamp to meet a quota of rejections), or reject forms for small technical mistakes, etc. Micheal Moore's movie focussed on this. The adversarial system is supposed to prevent unnecessary procedures, but the malpractice insurance industry pushes for more procedures. Meanwhile, insurance plans are far more complicated than needed, to give more opportunities for rejection. People in this system always experience problems, even when the actual health care that they receive is very good. The people with good (expensive) insurance plans are usually happy with it, largely because their company pays the costs, so they don't see any of it.
• Certain categories of people have government payment acting as insurance. Poor, usually children, qualify for Medicaid, and seniors qualify for Medicare. This is basically the Canadian system as well, only not universal. Physicians can "opt out" like they can in Canada, but in Canada there are few payment alternatives, so in practice almost all doctors are part of Medicare. In the U.S, a lot of doctors don't accept Medicaid or Medicare patients.
• Military personnel are covered by a hospital system operated by the government, through the military while serving, and through Veterans Affairs after. This is basically the same as the U.K's National Health System - government run from top to bottom. It actually works well, but suffers from gigantic bureaucracy typical of any large government organisation (just like the military itself, for that matter).

The reforms are meant to lower the cost of health care and insurance in two ways. First, usually people who don't need insurance (young people) don't get it, so those who do typically cost the insurance companies more, and they have to charge more for private plans. If everyone must have it, the costs should drop - this is the reason auto insurance is mandatory, and the result there. The other is to eliminate the non-payment problems of hospitals and doctors, so prices charged will be lower. Overall, this is the system used in Japan, and it works pretty well. It's not a quick fix though - quick fixes are really wanted these days. And ideological meddling and corporate corruption may prevent it from working at all - the U.S has a shortage of patience and reason when it comes to these things.

If you are robbing banks anyways...

[superdave80]

Just keep robbing until you get enough money to pay for your health care. That way, you avoid prison. If you do happen to get caught, THEN you go to jail. Either way you get what you want, but at least you have the chance of avoiding prison.

31k? Sounds like heaven to some people

[fyngyrz]

Glasgow, MT: My best friend makes $18k/year in a local IT job. His wife makes $8k/year. No insurance at work. No kids at home. They're in their 50's. So the gross household income is about $26k -- that's before taxes or any other expense. He's got a hernia, eye trouble, tooth trouble and a surprisingly long list of other crap. She's 5 years out from an occurrence of breast cancer and is diabetic, though she takes excellent care of herself (more than I can say for him... he's seriously depressed and just doesn't care any more... says there's no hope, and if I told him differently to try and improve his outlook, I'd just be lying anyway.)

They can't get health insurance. Period. Absolutely uninsurable. The breast cancer was covered by a state program; but nothing else is. (I suspect this reflects the American obsession with breasts more than anything else... if she'd have had pancreatic cancer, there wouldn't have been any coverage, for instance.) So their health, both of them, is going steadily downhill. More and more of their income is taken up by drug costs. Less and less is available for day to day costs of living.

That's what happens with America's insurance based system. We need a national health care mechanism that collects the amount needed each year in taxes and pays the entire healthcare tab; it's long past time to put insurance-for-profit out of business and reduce the system to taxes[doctor[patient]].
The profiteers have had a lovely run, but it should be terminated. It's directly harmful to society.

ER as healthcare option: total myth

[fyngyrz]

Wow, you forgot option 0, the one everybody who is not insured actually uses.

0) Go to the ER as they are legally not allowed to turn away anybody, even if you don't have a cent to your name.

The thing is, all they are obligated to do is stabilize you. So you can go in there suffering from a breakdown because your lung cancer has made it impossible for you to breathe, they'll give you a steroid inhaler, observe that you're now breathing on your own, and write you a note that says you should go see a doctor, which you, of course, get to pay for. They're *not* going to treat your lung cancer. You're NOT going to get chemo, anti-cancer drugs, or an operation. You're going to get the minimum care possible, and they'll get you out of there in the minimum possible time. They might give you a prescription to take to the drugstore, where you can pay out of pocket for it. They certainly won't give you a supply of drugs.

The ER is not an answer for *anything* that can't be fixed by a band-aid, a splint, or drugs administered on the spot.

the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

Dear Socialist,
I am tired of explaining how on the right wing we do not consider health care to be a "right". How we do not think that everyone must receive treatment regardless of whether he can pay for it or not. How we do not think that robbing one man to pay for another's healthcare is moral. Or, heck, how those socialist health care plans in european countries don't really work as well as you think. I am tired of arguing, so I'll just tell you this: shut up and vote. You'll vote for universal health care, I'll vote against; the votes will be counted and the result will emerge. That's how democracy works. The loser gets to shut up, go home, and sulk.

Re:the libertarian response:

[circletimessquare]

i understand what you believe. you believe in social darwinism

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

Please remember that when you get old. I don't want to hear about you collecting any SS or disability money. None of that evil dirty Medicare and Medicaid either. Oh wait, Nevermind I am not the asshole you are, if you get ill feel free to use those programs that is why they exist.

I bet you call yourself a "Christian" as well. Quite a common religion for those on the right. Their book is interesting though, as some great quotes that really make your type nervous, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me" that sort of thing. Even if you don't believe in that mythology, it sure sounds nice.

For your information Socialist is not an insult, nor is it an accurate description of the political beliefs of many here who do believe health care is a human right. Please try to learn some new words.

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

I forgot to mention, when did you live in one of those European nations and see their "socialist health care plans"? I ask because I have and I quite liked it.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

you believe in social darwinism

No, I don't. I don't believe that letting the poor sick die will improve the "evolutionary level of society". I merely believe that a society achieves such a higher level through removing the use of force (such as the collection of taxes) against any individual. By forcing me at gunpoint (yes, you socialists tend to forget that tax collection is enforced with guns; taxes are not paid voluntarily) to pay for someone's healthcare, you are making society less free, and that is my primary objection.

What you believe, is that by treating the poor sick you will improve society, which is a much better fit to the concept of social darwinism, only in reverse. You want to help those who can not help themselves, thus encouraging the survival of the least fit. Perhaps it is because you believe you will yourself benefit from such a policy because you see yourself as one of them.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

Please remember that when you get old. I don't want to hear about you collecting any SS or disability money.

Why don't you? I've been paying all that money into SS, so why shouldn't I take payments until I get it all back? I think that's fair. It is not immoral to take back what was stolen from you. It would be better to abolish social security in the first place though, and I would vote for anybody who wants to try.

For your information Socialist is not an insult, nor is it an accurate description of the political beliefs

Of course it isn't to you. When I tell you what you believe in, you are probably even proud of it. As for "accurate description", it is close enough. You keep changing the name of your beliefs as the names become derogatory to avoid believing in an insult. You also secretly believe that just because you change the name, people won't catch on. Well, I don't care what you call it. Socialism by any other name is socialism still. The core belief is still there - that of universal equality and public service. As long as that's still there, whatever name you choose I will treat as an insult.

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

You can try to redefine language however you like, good luck with that.

that of universal equality and public service
Wow, you missed to boat completely. Good luck with you life, remember mental disease is not something the ER will treat for free.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

see their "socialist health care plans"? I ask because I have and I quite liked it.

I guess you haven't had anything serious yet, or you might have ended up in the news as yet another socialist health care horror story as you can't get drugs due to rationing or just die while you wait months for treatment. Heck, even the NHS director herself could not get treatment and died in her own hospital. In the US you won't get treated if you can't afford it, but when you can afford it, you will get treated. I'll take that over your lousy universal health care any day.

Oh, and once you let the government "take care of you", it immediately decides it has the right to tell you how to live, and if you have some unhealthy habit you will become a criminal. You can keep your socialist health care and I'll keep my freedom to do whatever the heck I want with my body and die when I choose, not you.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

>> that of universal equality and public service
> You can try to redefine language however you like, good luck with that.

You're the one redefinining language. I'm russian and I've been thoroughly indoctrinated in socialist philosophy. Heck, the Soviet Union is the authority on socialism. If you disagree with a russian on socialism, you are WAY out of your league. Your arguments for health care, for example, are directly based on the "universal equality" value. You believe that everyone deserves the same thing everyone else is getting. In the Soviet Union that policy was pursued with a vengeance and resulted in everyone (except the power elite) becoming dirt poor. Yeah, we had free health care, and everyone got the same poor quality treatment. I'll choose a free country over that any day. The problem, of course, is finding a free country, since the whole world is becoming a socialist hellhole.

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

You believe that everyone deserves the same thing everyone else is getting.

Nope, just a bare minimum for everyone. With each who can afford more free to purchase more. The Soviet Union was the authority on State capitalism, nothing else.

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

Oh noes rationing, the same exact thing US healthcare does using money instead of another metric.

Those who can't afford it, don't get a choice. They would much prefer to live than have your foolish pride.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

Nope, just a bare minimum for everyone. With each who can afford more free to purchase more.

That's exactly what Soviet Union doctrine was. Of course, anyone who could afford more was labeled "kulak", robbed, and sent to Siberia. Socialists everywhere hate the rich. If they can not kill the rich, they suck them dry with taxes. There is, of couse, another name for this philosophy: envy. You socialists are really just petty thieves, wanting what you have not earned, and lacking even the courage to physically steal it, resorting instead of forcing the government to do the dirty work for you. "Bare minimum" you say? Yeah, that's what you all say, until you get whatever that may be, then you inevitably raise the minimum. There are no natural limits to envy.

But the amount, of course, is beside the point. The point is that you want what you have not earned. Period. Starving and want food? Better earn your living then. Come up with something valuable, usually your labour, to exchange for food, or medicine, or whatever else you want. That honest practice is called living by economic means. Stealing food directly or getting money by mugging people or through taxes or by invading another country, are all the dishonest ways of living by political means. The honest way is capitalism, with property and value-for-value exchange. The dishonest way is socialism, with everything obtained by force. How you can belive in the latter and live with yourself I don't know.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

Oh noes rationing, the same exact thing US healthcare does using money instead of another metric.

That's right; money is a method of rationing. It is, however, a just method of rationing. It gives you exactly what you have earned, and nothing more. That is called justice, and it is something we on the right wing belive in.

Those who can't afford it, don't get a choice. They would much prefer to live than have your foolish pride.

Sure they get a choice: earn the money or not. If you have not saved your earnings and decided instead to spend it all drinking at the pub, then it is your own fault that you have no money to spend on your medical treatment. The day of reckoning has come, grasshopper, and the your need alone will not persuade the ant to give you what he has saved.

Oh, you say, but medical treatment is so expensive that no average person can afford it. Well, tough. Then you will die. If you have not earned enough to trade for that expensive treatment, what right do you have to demand it by force? Yes, getting the money through taxing others is getting it by force. You think you are justified in your violent act because you are merely using it to buy your life rather than drugs. But what is your life worth to society? You know what it's worth; we measure that in money. However much money you have, that's how much your life is worth. If your life is not worth preserving, you will die. That is justice.

We on the right wing belive in justice: to everyone exactly what he has earned and nothing more. You on the left, don't. This is a core value and can not be changed by argument. You either believe it or you don't. I don't know how this happens; maybe you've had a screwed up childhood. The fact is, the value won't change, and neither will your view of equality and, consequently, of universal health care. So I say shut the fuck up and vote. The votes will be counted and we'll see if you get to force your views on the whole country or not. Democracy is a really bad system of government this way. Except for all the others, of course.

Re:the libertarian response:

[circletimessquare]

hey, asshole:

you believe the poor should die. because that's what will happen in your world

oh i know you won't come out and say that. and the idea probably repulses you

but what you don't understand is that the poor just dying is what will happen in the style of government you want. that means you are stupid, not evil. you are so stupid you don't understand what your beliefs actually result in

example: i'm broke, and i come into the hospital with a broken arm. do they say "do you have enough cash to pay for your broken arm?" if i say no, do the kick me out? no? if they treat me anyway, and send me a bill, and i avoid the bill because i can't afford it, then what? do i go to debtor's prison? finally, do we let the hospital go bankrupt because of all the people not paying their bills? no: the govt bails out the hospital

hey, asshole:

WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IN THE USA, FOR DECADES

people can't afford their bills, avoid them, and the govt continually bails out the hospitals from going bankrupt. PAID FOR WITH YOUR TAXES

we already have universal healthcare you dimwit!

now all i'm asking you to do IS STOP STICKING UP FOR FREELOADERS who avoid their bills, AND PAY FOR THE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY, rather the extremely pigheaded and wasteful way we pay for it

why are you so fucking thick you can't see this?

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

you believe the poor should die. because that's what will happen in your world. oh i know you won't come out and say that. and the idea probably repulses you

All right, I'll say it: the poor who can't afford treatment for their fatal illness should be allowed to die. Note that I didn't say "killed"; with you left wingers one must emphasise that. There is a big difference between killing somebody and not preventing his death. The former is what the right wing does not want, the latter is what the left wing does not want.

people can't afford their bills, avoid them, and the govt continually bails out the hospitals from going bankrupt. PAID FOR WITH YOUR TAXES

I don't know where you get that. If you "avoid" your bills, you will have to deal with debt collectors who will either try to legally force you to pay for what you have received, or force a bankrupcy. Yes, this is a negative outcome, but you got something you didn't pay for; that's stealing, so you very well deserve it.

now all i'm asking you to do IS STOP STICKING UP FOR FREELOADERS who avoid their bills

I couldn't agree with you more here. The freeloading practice should stop. You advocate forcing everyone in the country to pay for these people at gunpoint (remember, that's how taxes are collected). I advocate not treating them in the first place. If you can't afford it -- you don't get treated. End of story. Yes, if you have something fatal, then you will die. Tough. You have no right to rob the rest of us to prolong your life.

In other words: you keep saying that we should steal money from people to pay for these freeloaders, while I say we should not do that and let them get what they deserve. You are advocating a crime. I'm advocating justice.

why are you so fucking thick you can't see this?

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

Have a nice day, you are truly a terrible person if you believe that to be justice. I hope you never find yourself without enough money to live.

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

Way to put words in people mouths. I don't hate anyone, hate is not healthy. I don't want anyone to pay more than their fair share in taxes, I support tax cuts to help the economy and I would gladly pay more than I do know if that is what it took to provide healthcare to all.

How you can live with yourself when you believe innocent children and anyone too infirm to work should die I do not know.

Re:the libertarian response:

[Chemisor]

I don't want anyone to pay more than their fair share in taxes

Well then you obviously must support raising taxes on the poor to pay for healthcare. After all, half the country pays no taxes, and the richest 10% pay three quarters of all taxes. Surely you don't think this fair? The poor are the ones who will be using this universal health care, so why should the rich be the ones to pay for it all? I don't know what definition of "fair" you could have in that twisted mind of yours, but this situation certainly does not fit mine.

I would gladly pay more than I do know if that is what it took to provide healthcare to all. How you can live with yourself when you believe innocent children and anyone too infirm to work should die I do not know.

The issue is not whether they should die or not. The issue is whether you have the right to use force to take my money to pay for their survival. There is a huge difference between charity and welfare: the former is voluntary, the latter is done at the point of a gun. You said that you would gladly pay more to provide universal health care; so why don't you do that? There are charities that provide free health services to the poor and you are free to contribute. Why do you insist that I and everyone else in the country must be robbed in order to pay for these services? How can you live with yourself when you advocate using violence to deprive people of their hard-earned property?

Re:the libertarian response:

[h4rr4r]

The richest 10% have more than 3/4 the wealth. Fair would be a percentage of income above some threshhold, and a reverse income tax for all. I know that sounds darn socialist, but before you lose your mind try to realize that is an idea I stole from Milton Friedman. You cannot tax the poor to pay for healthcare they cannot already afford. You can't get blood from a stone.

As to my mental health, every society does this on some level. Even we have ER care available to all. You are the one who seems to be suffering a gross over reaction to any sort of civilization.

The issue is not whether they should die or not. The issue is whether you have the right to use force to take my money to pay for their survival.

That bridge was crossed long ago, otherwise we would have no police, roads or fire departments. This is one of the costs of having a society, if you do not like it feel free to live apart from your fellow man.
Taxes are the price you pay to be part of society.

You said that you would gladly pay more to provide universal health care; so why don't you do that? There are charities that provide free health services to the poor and you are free to contribute.

I do contribute to charities, but none provide universal healthcare. They only help the less fortunate, that is not universal.

The rest of your comment is not worth discussing, If you really think taxes are theft, please do act on that and move to a tax free area. Somalia is a good place to start looking. The rest of us will continue to realize that is with our tax dollars that we purchase civilization.

Re:Screw the insurance

[Nethemas the Great]

You pay the "big insurance" so that when you get cancer you can get $500,000 of the $2,000,000 medical bills payed before the lifetime maximum is reached. Unless of course your chemo makes you too sick to work, then you'll end up with something more like $20,000 before they cut you off since you couldn't afford the premium. But don't worry as soon as you run out of insurance the hospital will drop your treatment anyway so the bill won't get too terribly high and of course you can escape that through dying from your illness.

Re: $7,200/yr.

[Talderas]

If you buy a new car, you're a fucking moron that should be taken out back and bludgeoned.

wait a minute. libertarian != anti-healthcare

[fyngyrz]

Why do you refuse to accept that a national health care system will help solve the cost issue as well as the availability issue?
Oh yea, libertarian..

Don't be an idiot. I'm a libertarian, I'm wealthy, enough so to afford any conceivable healthcare, and I *totally* support the idea of taxes[healthcare[patients]]] as the best possible, and the most needed, solution to all US healthcare issues. I don't mind in the least paying proportionally more money than a person with lesser wealth, as long as I'm not paying to bomb camels or support things like the government's current war against personal choice. As far as I'm concerned, insurance companies are state-sponsored predators and deserve to be punished for doing public harm with intent and foreknowledge. But I'm still a libertarian: I'm concerned about personal freedom. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize the value to the country and to the individual of an educated, healthy populace with assured basic levels of communications, sustenance, and a decent place to live.

Libertarians aren't generally anarchists, you know. Government has purpose; and building a worthy foundation for a prosperous nation is purpose #1. Real-world government requires a mix of techniques. What we're saying, or at least, what I'm saying as a libertarian, is that the current mix has turned out very poorly, and we should fix it. A lot of the fix requires that citizens get back the many, many rights and freedoms they have lost to the current system. That doesn't mean I want corporations to control government or that I think anything anyone does to anyone (read, insurance) is ok.

Re:"a female teller"

[h4rr4r]

Why 59?
What does that add to the story, sounds like ageism to me.

Why Human? Could have been a Gorilla that knew sign language, sounds like specism to me!

Re:1 Trillion Dollars

[Nethemas the Great]

You omit the fact that most of it doesn't come into effect until 2012 and $1T isn't the annual cost why?

Re:stop it, please

[Nethemas the Great]

So you see, when you or anyone else lets go of this ball it will fall to the ground. But, for me it will sail to the heavens...

Re:stop it, please

[HeckRuler]

Well it's good you can see and accept that it's broken. In a number of controversal issues, even admitting there is a problem seems to be beyond the grasp for some people. But advice just kinda sucks.
1) Why wouldn't we compare systems? No, of course things are not exactly the same. But if you say that the universal health care that works over there won't work over here, you at least need to say WHY. So in what way are we different. Also, why don't we want to become like these countries if they have a better system?
2) I dunno man, I think everyone has the right to clean air and water. That doesn't mean subsidized bottled water stands in the desert, but it does mean that city water plants should maintain certain standards. And smog and pollution needs to be controlled. It's just kinda one of those basic things that established societies should do. Same way with health care. Nobody gets free robo-limbs and all the happy-pills they want, but if people get hurt, we should fix them up without putting them into soul-crushing debt
3) Ah. States rights. An old bastion for program people want to kill. Honestly, what's the difference? Sadly, the medical industry has far more political heft then the state governments. Possibly even more then the Federal. I see your point though. It'd be nice if more states proved that new systems could work.
4) You mean the watered-down flimsy piece that was castrated long before it got passed? The one that even staunch healthcare reform proponents dislike after it went through enough rounds of compromise. Yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in it either. The Obama administration pushed hard, but it wasn't quite enough to get anything meaningful through.

And I actually think you hit the nail on the head. The debate has been about healthcare insurance. But I don't give a damn about healthcare insurance, I care about actual healthcare. All insurance does is spread out possible costs across a pool of people and into the future. It doesn't lower the cost at all.

Sad

[kisak]

Another sad story:

For Want of a Dentist

Basically a young boy dies a painful death because his parents could not afford $ 80,- of dental treatment that was not covered by Medicaid. The bacteria spread to brain, the 12-year old gets treatment worth more than $ 250 000,- before he dies. How does tax payers save money by not allowing everyone proper health care (including dental health)? That is health care before people get seriously sick and end up in the emergency room. And I have not even included in the calculation what this young boy could have given back to the society by working and paying taxes and maybe being an entrepeneur...

Try it like this...

[denzacar]

Let's say that some charity organization has a budget of a 1000 dollars.
And let's say that it caters to the needs of Blue people, Green people and Purple people.
But, as the Purple people are a minority, they get a leg up - they get a priority of service. Same service, they just get it first.

Theoretically, since Purples are a minority giving them priority in service shouldn't unbalance the system.
BUT, the charity's budget does not accurately match the population, and is also very limited.
Also, while the Purple people are a minority in the population, there may be equal or even a greater number of them in the queue for the charity.
After all, it is only logical that they will show up in greater numbers there where they have priority, right?
Also, being a minority, they probably DO need more help than other groups as their social network simply can't provide as much assistance as the Blue or Green one can - as less people in the network also means that there are less WELL-OFF people in the network.

So... Let's say that the charity above decides to distribute $100 donations, and that Blue, Green and Purple people show up in equal numbers.
But, as Purple people have priority, they get pushed at the front of the queue.
So out of a queue like BGP, PGB, GPB, GBP - Blue and Green people groups will get $300 each, while Purple people will get $400. Those last two Green and Blue get zip.
And that's when you have equal number of Blue, Green and Purple people in the queue.

That would be the fabled "positive discrimination".

Or you can turn that around, and apply it to your particular case where you are the representative of the Purple people BUT without any particular perks or advantages as in your case Purple people are not a minority.
It's just that in your particular case Green and Blue people get the "regular" discrimination treatment.

Re:Try it like this...

[Danse]

So out of a queue like BGP, PGB, GPB, GBP - Blue and Green people groups will get $300 each, while Purple people will get $400. Those last two Green and Blue get zip. And that's when you have equal number of Blue, Green and Purple people in the queue.

The idea behind that is that those Purple people are getting shafted in a lot of other places due to discrimination, so there are more of them in need of charity. Discrimination is ugly business. It's hard to prove, it's hard to prevent, and it's hard to counter-act without more discrimination. I don't like the fact that we have affirmative action or other types of "reverse discrimination", but when you've had the kinds of clear discrimination problems that we've had in the US in the past, and that we still have today, there aren't really any good options that will rectify the problem.

Re:Try it like this...

[denzacar]

The idea behind that is that those Purple people are getting shafted in a lot of other places due to discrimination, so there are more of them in need of charity.

Not necessarily due to discrimination - you can have a more disadvantaged group with no discrimination implied or applied.
I used neutral colors on purpose - Purple people could just as well be handicapped, single mothers, people with AIDS... or any racial/cultural minority of your choosing. Take your pick.

The problem is that there is not enough available aid, that which is available does not accurately match the population and the fact that it often gets mismanaged.

there aren't really any good options that will rectify the problem.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Sure there are good options. Problem is, they cost a lot. And not just money-wise.
If it was just money, problem could be solved simply by getting enough people to donate more money and all those discrimination problems would disappear.
They cost a lot in will, the cost a lot in change, they cost a lot in education, they cost a lot in work, they cost a lot in privileges AND they cost a lot in money.
And the worst (best?) part is - all those costs would have to be applied on ALL SIDES.

Getting those filthy Purple people to civilize-up and become self sufficient is worthless unless you get everyone else to stop thinking about them and treating them as filthy Purples instead of simply as people.

Oh and... More than anything else, it would cost in time. I'm talking centuries.
We still haven't really gotten to apply those "Thou shall not kill, steal, lie, cheat..." rules. We're sorta getting there, although very gradually and with many relapses.
To expect that we will finally adopt that "Love thy fellow man" in under a couple of millennia would be highly optimistic.

But that does not mean we should give it all up. Just that we should stop trying to fix everything instantly, and then getting disappointed when we fail.

Re:Try it like this...

[Danse]

Not necessarily due to discrimination - you can have a more disadvantaged group with no discrimination implied or applied. I used neutral colors on purpose - Purple people could just as well be handicapped, single mothers, people with AIDS... or any racial/cultural minority of your choosing. Take your pick.

Funny that you say that it's not necessarily due to discrimination, and then go on to list a bunch of groups that are/have been discriminated against.

Sure there are good options. Problem is, they cost a lot. And not just money-wise.

--snip--

Oh and... More than anything else, it would cost in time. I'm talking centuries.

Yeah, you pretty much just explained why there are no good options. Things like education are important, but are often undermined by those who don't want education to be a priority. Either they have the ability to educate their kids themselves, or they have the money to pay for private education. For those that have neither, they get screwed when public education gets screwed. That throws a wrench in the works of getting those purples to civilize-up and become self-sufficient, which, in turn, perpetuates the filthy Purples mentality.

Essentially you're saying that if everyone did the right thing and started showing some empathy for their fellow humans, everything would be sorted out in time. Sorry to inform you that that is highly unlikely to happen, because many people don't give a shit about others. They are concerned with their own interests and if others have to suffer, that's not their problem. Social Darwinism is the mentality of a very large minority of the country, and apathy is the mentality of another significant minority. I think that those that actually want things to be better are severely outnumbered. We don't even seem to be moving in the right direction at this point.

Re:Try it like this...

[denzacar]

Funny that you say that it's not necessarily due to discrimination, and then go on to list a bunch of groups that are/have been discriminated against.

I have a feeling you have a difficulty of discerning between being discriminated upon due to being in a group AND being in a group due to disability of some kind.
Correlation does not a causation make.

Yeah, you pretty much just explained why there are no good options.

I have a feeling you have a difficulty of discerning between terms like "good" and ones that mean "easy" and "quick".

Social Darwinism is the mentality of a very large minority of the country, and apathy is the mentality of another significant minority. I think that those that actually want things to be better are severely outnumbered.

And there lies your problem (your problem being of the "forest for the trees" variety).

There is no "country".
That's an imaginary distinction applied on a geographical area, a product of treaties and agreements - while the problem is actually of psychological and sociological nature of the humanity as a whole, and of every single person as a part of the said humanity.
One might as well be talking about should the right hand be called right or dexter and left hand sinister OR the other way around - when trying to surgically fix a head injury that cause twitches in one side of the body.

The other part of your problem is that you seem to think that people actually actively try to make things worse, or at best don't care if things turn worse all around them.
And while the second part may be true on the smallest of scales (like the guy tossing a plastic bottle out of the window, not caring for recycling), it is actually WAY OFF when talking about societies, politicians, businesses etc. - and even your regular Joe Average.
Most of us are actually hardwired for empathy - it's why we have this society thing instead of just spending our days getting our bellies full and trying to get laid.
As for the people who end up responsible for the global problems we're experiencing - they don't spend their free time twirling their mustache dreaming up evil schemes and plans how to kill Superman.
The most tragic thing is they are actually trying to help and make things better most of the time.

It's just that they are doing their planing and executing their actions based on faulty data, bad ideas, wrong assumptions and plain old wishful thinking and arrogance combined with the need to fix everything instantly.
You know... like in the next two years at the most, cause they will need next two years of their term to campaign for the next term.
And cause the public wants it all done yesterday. With no effort or responsibility on their part.
And a lollipop.
And a pony.

There ARE solutions but they are VERY hard and none of them are instant. Most of them would not even show results within our generation.
Mostly cause it's the case of fighting centuries of preconceptions on top of millennia of evolution (Although, some of those millennia actually work for you, as do some of those centuries.).
And there is no fucking chance in hell you could fix those in the time-space of couple of generations, let alone in a mandate or two.
Even if we don't generate more problems along the way - which we will.

But we still have to keep working on it, regardless.
It's not like there is some "invisible hand" (of god or Market) that will fix everything for us if we just let things run as they are.

Re:Try it like this...

[Danse]

I have a feeling you have a difficulty of discerning between being discriminated upon due to being in a group AND being in a group due to disability of some kind. Correlation does not a causation make.

I have a feeling that you think that being in a group because you are disabled, and being discriminated against are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Every one of the groups you listed have experienced discrimination on a wide scale.

I have a feeling you have a difficulty of discerning between terms like "good" and ones that mean "easy" and "quick".

I have a feeling that you don't understand that your supposed centuries-hence solutions don't do anything for those who are being discriminated against today, and are therefore not good for those people. It is a massive injustice to allow that to continue without doing something to compensate for it.

There is no "country". That's an imaginary distinction applied on a geographical area, a product of treaties and agreements - while the problem is actually of psychological and sociological nature of the humanity as a whole, and of every single person as a part of the said humanity.

There most certainly are countries, often with their own distinct cultures, prejudices and groups against whom they discriminate. Those who are discriminated against in one country may be of the same group as those who are discriminating against other groups in another country. Those that are discriminated against, may also discriminate against others. It varies from place to place and culture to culture.

As for the people who end up responsible for the global problems we're experiencing - they don't spend their free time twirling their mustache dreaming up evil schemes and plans how to kill Superman. The most tragic thing is they are actually trying to help and make things better most of the time

Some of them are probably genuinely trying to do the right thing. Many are just seeking power though. Those who lack empathy tend to be quite good at climbing the ranks. You seem to have forgotten how many people have done so much to fight against equal rights and treatment for others. They feel that by allowing others to advance and succeed, it lowers their own chances of success, or they just don't like people who are different. These people were not trying to make things better for us as a whole, but only for themselves and those that they feel are like them, and they select leaders that do the same.

It's just that they are doing their planing and executing their actions based on faulty data, bad ideas, wrong assumptions and plain old wishful thinking and arrogance combined with the need to fix everything instantly. You know... like in the next two years at the most, cause they will need next two years of their term to campaign for the next term. And cause the public wants it all done yesterday. With no effort or responsibility on their part.

No, some of the public wants it done, others don't want it done. Failure to recognize that fact will lead to failure to predict and plan for the roadblocks that will be erected by others to prevent any plan from succeeding. I agree that short-term solutions are not going to solve the problem, but I think that they are a necessary part of the long-term solution. Denying people justice now, and possibly for decades or centuries to come, is no way for a society to behave, and will only lead to further problems stemming from the discontent of those being discriminated against.

While the short-term solutions may not solve the problem, they can at least remedy some of the symptoms of the problem until a long-term solution has obviated the need for such short-term solutions. Kinda like taking medicine to control your symptoms while you're waiting for your body to fight off an illness.

There ARE solutions but they are VERY hard and none

The ER myth again

[fyngyrz]

meaning that the person with lung cancer is going to be covered every time he goes to the ER anyway

Well, what it *actually* means is that they'll get some aspirin, a steroid inhaler, a prescription they can't afford to fill, and advice to see a doctor they also can't afford. Followed closely by an ER bill they can't afford.

Turns out that in the US, the legal obligation of the ER is to stabilize the patient. Not to treat them and actually resolve the underlying problem. So if you walk in there with lung cancer, you're walking out too, and without chemo, without operation(s), without drugs beyond one dose, and pretty much without anything else you actually need, either. ER as a solution to anything beyond band-aid, splint, or aspirin level problems is a complete and utter myth. It's also worth keeping in mind that whatever treatment you get in the ER you still get billed for -- and it is very expensive. It's a very poor choice, and it is rarely a solution.

Re:The ER myth again

[snowgirl]

This is pretty close to accurate, but a little pessimistic. The ER is required to stabilize and treat immediate life-threatening situations. The person with lung cancer will get only partial care, unless immediate surgery is the only appropriate care. Which of course means stage IV cancer which really means that they're going to die anyway.

However, say, you break your femur. They will give you surgery to put a pin in it, and set it. (Because they couldn't discharge you with a broken femur, and putting you in a cast for a femur means traction, which they won't want to do.) But then, say you break a finger. That would be a splint/cast and you're out.

But yeah, you still get a bill that you can't afford, and a prescription that you can't afford. (I had the same incident. Went in for chest pains, got two prescriptions that I was told are $4 each to fill, and I debated telling them not to bother, because I can't afford that anyways.)

Re:The ER myth again

[TheSpoom]

How is this a myth? The hospital can send as many bills to the poor person as they want, they're still not going to be able to pay them. Ultimately the cost still gets passed on to the taxpayer, either through higher hospital fees to cover the unpaid bills of the indigent, or through higher taxes.

Re:The ER myth again

[fyngyrz]

It's a myth that ER treatment resolves medical issues as a bottom level (or any level) safety net mechanism for care of anything beyond a very restricted and simplistic set of issues. It's not a myth that you can go to the ER. You can certainly go. They'll be happy to see you. So will the collection agency, the judge, and the credit bureau. But you'll still be sick.

"in the active process of..."

[Benfea]

Are you [bad word] kidding me? In the process of creating a permanently unemployable underclass? As in present progressive tense? No, you should use the past tense. Try "have created" instead.

The conservatives and libertarians threw much of our rights under the bus in order to elect "tough on crime" candidates. Not only did this undermine our constitutional rights and create a giant prison industry that rivals the military industrial complex (why didn't anyone hold their feet to the fire for massively expanding government while campaigning as the "small government" crowd?), but creating a permanently unemployable underclass was the whole [bad word] point.

Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy has been undermining the middle class since the days of Reagan. One of the ways conservatives and libertarians have been able to mask this fact was by transferring large numbers of the working poor into prison, thus reducing job-seeking competition for people falling from the middle class into the upper reaches of the working poor. Without this part of the strategy, those riots you see in Wisconsin, Michigan and other places would have started happening a long time ago.

Re:"in the active process of..."

[owski]

Why are you lumping libertarians in with conservatives on the "tough on crime" thing? Libertarians, unlike both major parties, are opposed to the imprisonment of most of those in prison in the US.

I can see lumping them together for some things, but "tough on crime" certainly isn't one of them.

Re:"in the active process of..."

[Yadyn]

I don't want this to turn into an ideologue battle, but do not throw libertarianism in with conservatives' mad rush to convict everyone of everything even remotely "immoral"... if anything, libertarians have been calling for decades for the decriminalization (or outright legalization) of many currently illegal activities, especially drug use and other "victimless crimes". Libertarians have also been crowing about neo-con appeals to small government despite having had 8 years of the most massive expansion in government surpassed only by the current administration.

Your ire is understandable and valid, but be careful of wholesale condemnation. Rarely are things ever so black and white.

Re:"in the active process of..."

[Sumtingwong]

Wow, watch MSNBC much?

Re:"in the active process of..."

[operagost]

You clearly have no idea what a libertarian is. Please stop using the word.

Re:"in the active process of..."

[operagost]

Because the GP poster is a fool who only knows what Jon Stewart and Moveon.org have told him, which is that libertarians are evil. Since conservatives are also evil, he assumes they must be the same thing.

Re:I work for Heath Insurance

[fyngyrz]

I work for Heath Insurance.

That's cool. Heaths are always getting blasted, and stuff. Glad to hear someone is looking out for them.

Re:Hey, might make sense

[emt377]

If you're homeless, you probably qualify for Medicaid.

Homeless doesn't matter, other than no state agency will touch you if you can't show you're a resident. Such as a utility bill in your name. What matters for eligibility, mainly, is if you have children or whether you're employed (working poor). https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/02_AreYouEligible_.asp

Medicaid doesn't pay for uninsured people who show up at the ER. Instead the hospital tacks it on to its general cost structure, which gets passed on to those insured. So the insurance rates paid already reflect the uninsured.

Re:True Evil

[fyngyrz]

but they all will pay for this

No, they won't. You'll bluster, you'll pay, and they will profit. End of story.

Watch out for 11 packs! (Steinlager and others)

[HornWumpus]

Damn scamming Kiwis.

Steinlager is not only mediocre beer, it comes in 11 packs. They look like 12 packs but they are a fluid ounce short per bottle.

Re:Sad, but more common than you think.

[anyGould]

You would die in a 5 star hotel.

The comparison between a modern hospital room and a hotel is absurd.

Not necessarily - he specified a "recovery room", which is pretty much a bed, a TV, and a nurse to check on you every few hours. I wouldn't be surprised if for low-risk surgeries it was cheaper to get a decent hotel room and pay a nurse to stop by twice a day.

Re:1 Trillion Dollars

[emt377]

What a very sad state we are. The whole healthcare reform bill ended up "costing", what, around 1 Trillion dollars? And what was it supposed to accomplish? I see, well, when people are resorting to crime to get healthcare I would say the reform act got it wrong. Seriously, for 1 Trillion the government could have just bought insurance policies for 100 million people.

Rush Limbaugh clearly labels his shows "for entertainment purposes only". You're not SUPPOSED to take it seriously. He makes stuff up. It's fiction. Not real. There is no trillion dollar cost.

Re:fwiw

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Where did he say that he didn't have a job? All we know is that his income is low enough that he needs to be on his mother's crappy policy to make ends meet. The phrase "help pay rent" in the last paragraph indicates that OP is paying some of it themselves.

Which means you're castigating him for not earning enough to pay for insurance that he clearly needs. And, if he gets over his shame enough to conjure up a higher-paying job, you will then castigate whoever starts doing his current job in hisplace for not earning enough.

You must be a troll, surely.

and the truth comes out

[circletimessquare]

" If you can't afford it -- you don't get treated. End of story. Yes, if you have something fatal, then you will die. Tough. You have no right to rob the rest of us to prolong your life."

you're a social darwinist. the poor should hurry up and die already. that's what you believe in

i'm glad you're finally coming around to admitting to yourself what exactly you are: evil and immoral

Re:stop it, please

[Pfhorrest]

2. Health Care is absolutely a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

I am actually in favor of public health care, but please, the UDHR is a laughable source to appeal to for a claim of rights. "Periodic vacations with pay" is also lauded as a "human right" by that document. Are the indigenous tribes-people of New Guinea being denied their basic human rights because they have to hunt and gather every day and nobody ever pays them to take a day off?

Public health care is a smart use of a wealthy nation's resources, just like public education is, and all sorts of public goods; but that doesn't make any of those rights.

Perhaps because

[Demena]

There are two forms of libertarianism, right wing and left wing. At least there used to be.... ....but mostly you only ever hear about the right wing libertarians nowadays. A left wing libertarian has no problem paying his share a right wing libertarian sees it as an unjust demand.

Re:Perhaps because

[operagost]

Wow; I see you also have no idea what a libertarian is. The problem is that what we call a libertarian used to be a liberal, but FDR redefined the word in his Newspeak-like way to mean someone who likes lots of government interference in the economy.

Betting against having to pay later

[glodime]

An excellent explanation, but no mod points available.

Re:I call BS

[elrous0]

If they would rather die, then let them do it and decrease the surplus population.

Re:stop it, please

[davek]

another dissenting opinion modded down by those that think overrated == I_disagree .

Penalized for pay as you go in MA

[mrnick]

If you live in Massachusetts you have to pay a penalty on your state income taxes if you cannot provide proof of insurance. So, you can still pay for your medical care yourself but you are penalized for it.

Gambling...?

[Half-pint HAL]

With craps you choose whether or not to play, with health, you're playing, like it or not. It's not the same thing.

But if you're going to compare healthcare to gaming, a better example would be Russian Roulette. I think my reasons are obvious....

HAL