HR 676 - US Nat'l Health Insurance Act

[Phi for All]

I'm getting up a head of steam to put some support behind a national health care program. The US healthcare system has been hijacked by insurance carriers whose business is seemingly inimicable to good health care; they make more money if they neglect our health and deny our claims.

 

The insurance companies and health manglement companies have become so wealthy and powerful they can affect legislation and the media in their favor. Lobbying for US healthcare dollars allows them to mire us even deeper into a system that is neither effective nor efficient. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to shoot down any reform, even resorting to smear campaigns against the national medical services available in most other major countries.

 

I used to believe healthcare was a privilege rather than a right, but even the 8th amendment to the constitution grants the right of free medical care to prisoners because not to do so is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Shouldn't we treat ourselves at least as well as we treat our prisoners? I've heard too many stories of people who had all the bases covered only to find that, when they really needed the insurance they'd invested in, someone from their own insurance provider found a form that hadn't been filled out completely enough and denied their claim, forcing them into bankruptcy instead.

 

What really moves me towards advocacy in this matter are the doctors who just want to help people but can't when it's not profitable for the insurance carriers. I'm sure SFN members from Canada, the UK, France, Germany and other countries with national health services would be shocked to know what we have to pay for healthcare in the US and how poorly served we are by the present system. Doctors often have to tell patients that tests and procedures they needed when insurance was available are no longer required when insurance runs out or claims are denied due to clerical error. Doctors get blamed for not being able to practice medicine.

 

Has anyone researched H.R. 676? What do you think of the bill? Is it a step in the right direction? Do you think the US can have a national health insurance system who's number one goal is keeping us healthy?

[Pangloss]

I haven't researched the bill, but regarding the larger issue my general feeling is that we can afford it as a society and it's worth it as an investment. It'll help us stay competitive in the global economy, improve the standard of living and, if it's done right, cost us LESS than it does now. What's not to like?

[YT2095]

we have smear campaigns here too, and breast screening ones, all for Free.

 

I think it`s a good idea!

[Phi for All]

we have smear campaigns here too, and breast screening ones, all for Free.

Not PAP smears, you great stonking numty! (funny, but WRONG!)

 

Our smear campaigns are aimed at making *your* national health system seem barbaric. They claim your doctors are underqualified and undermotivated. They claim you only have a few big pieces of medical diagnostics machinery and would have us believe you make people wait months to use them and have to wheel them from office to office to handle all the requests. These campaigns tell us you have little choice because your system is run by the government and then compares healthcare in the UK & Canada to our own postal service (which is still government-run and gets lots of complaints, even though we still pay less than half a dollar to mail a first-class letter).

[YT2095]

Opps my bad!

[ParanoiA]

I'm confused, why are we concentrating on health insurance for everyone? The current system is the problem, so why would anyone want to invest more in it? I don't understand this.

 

This feels like redirection/conditioning. Like Pavlov's dog, we're redesigning the bell to change the taste of the food.

[Reaper]

I'm confused, why are we concentrating on health insurance for everyone? The current system is the problem, so why would anyone want to invest more in it? I don't understand this.

 

Basically, we are trying to achieve what most of the other nations with national healthcare systems have: free healthcare or healthcare insurance provided by the government. And if you read carefully the reasons for doing this is that most everyone agrees that healthcare should be a fundamental right of the people, not a commodity as it is being treated by the current system.

 

The current system refers to the fact that our healthcare insurance is being controlled by corporations, whose sole purpose for existence is to make a profit, not to care for the people under such insurance policies.

 

The fact that they can choose to simply refuse to cover for you out of convenience should cause some very serious concerns. In fact, they do indeed do this.

[Phi for All]

I'm confused, why are we concentrating on health insurance for everyone? The current system is the problem, so why would anyone want to invest more in it? I don't understand this.

 

This feels like redirection/conditioning. Like Pavlov's dog, we're redesigning the bell to change the taste of the food.

From what I've read, the insurance angle is to make the government the insurer, rather than making the government the healthcare giver (we've been conditioned to think socialized medicine is state-run and staffed). This way we pay into the system and the system pays out to the care provider. Benefits are lower costs, time saved due to lack of red tape and you can't get turned down on a technicality.

 

I'm not sure yet how HR 676 addresses pharmaceuticals. Without the insurance companies deciding which meds are covered there will most likely be more competition which should drive prices down.

[ParanoiA]

How does this impact the small business of medicine? If I'm a doctor, how does this effect what I charge? Does "the government" decide how much I can make by placing thresholds on what they'll pay?

 

Basically, we are trying to achieve what most of the other nations with national healthcare systems have: free healthcare or healthcare insurance provided by the government. And if you read carefully the reasons for doing this is that most everyone agrees that healthcare should be a fundamental right of the people, not a commodity as it is being treated by the current system.

 

When you use the word "free", it discredits your position. Healthcare will be free when you talk everyone in the medical business into doing it for free. Until then, you're shifting the funding. No value judgement in that statement, just fact.

 

The current system refers to the fact that our healthcare insurance is being controlled by corporations, whose sole purpose for existence is to make a profit, not to care for the people under such insurance policies.

 

Same with grocery stores, food manufactures, 911 service... The problem is not their motivations (profit), the problem is regulating them into a monopolistic industry - which is what we have done. WE are responsible for the medical issues in this country - not "those dirty corporations" - ALL of us are, including the dirty corporations.

 

You're basically blaming a dog for eating bologne laying on the floor. We know the dog's motivations, so why do we act indignified that he ate the meal we left for him?

 

And why do I keep using dog analogies?

[ecoli]

I'm not sure about the details of this bill, in general, but I don't think it'll pass right now. And I'm not necesarily sorry for that.

 

The problem that I have with the insurance industry is not too little government interference, but too much. I worry that government sponsered health care will turn into a corrupted government-sponsered monopoly where the insurance companies will overcharge whatever they want and theres no free market competition to stop it.

 

If you need a stronger clue, just look how the Democratic candidates, and their universal health care proposals are getting a lot of donations for pharmaceticals and insurance companies. Now, it could be that these are lobbyists trying to stop universal health care, but somehow I doubt that.

What I think, is that the insurance industries are banking on getting government to 'compromise' on some half measure that allows them to keep premiums artificially high without making real changes... and calling it an 'overhaul' to keep the sheeple happy.

[Phi for All]

The problem that I have with the insurance industry is not too little government interference, but too much. I worry that government sponsered health care will turn into a corrupted government-sponsered monopoly where the insurance companies will overcharge whatever they want and theres no free market competition to stop it.

But the system we have *now* is corrupt. Where is the competition when the insurance companies are networked? Why fear government intervention? How else are common people like me going to work to correct something we feel is wrong?

 

Right now, part of what we pay the insurance companies for is to employ people who look for reasons to deny us the coverage we are banking on having when we get sick. With HR 676 there's nothing for a government entity to deny. The sick get medical attention. Period. The system can always be corrupted if we're not vigilant but at least it makes sense not to empower an industry who uses our own money to get out of doing what we pay them for.

 

If you need a stronger clue, just look how the Democratic candidates, and their universal health care proposals are getting a lot of donations for pharmaceticals and insurance companies. Now, it could be that these are lobbyists trying to stop universal health care, but somehow I doubt that.

That's why I like this bill (so far as I've skimmed it). It's going to allow insurance companies to compete, but it's going to set a standard that won't allow for the ludicrous profits at the expense of good health that happen now. And no more of this denial of claim crap. Allow doctors to heal the sick and injured.

What I think, is that the insurance industries are banking on getting government to 'compromise' on some half measure that allows them to keep premiums artificially high without making real changes... and calling it an 'overhaul' to keep the sheeple happy.

That's what I really hope to avoid. It's almost a forgone conclusion without some major league stumping.

[ecoli]

But the system we have *now* is corrupt. Where is the competition when the insurance companies are networked? Why fear government intervention? How else are common people like me going to work to correct something we feel is wrong?

Keep in mind that I'm not stumping to keep the system we have now... and I can't think of anyone who isn't a CEO of a health insurance company that is.

 

However, I tend to see government sponsered health care as one giant corporate entitlement program. I see that as a misuse of taxpayer dollars. I want to shrink the IRS, not enbiggen it (and that's a perfectly cromulent word, so don't start ) with what such a system would cost.

 

Right now, part of what we pay the insurance companies for is to employ people who look for reasons to deny us the coverage we are banking on having when we get sick. With HR 676 there's nothing for a government entity to deny. The sick get medical attention. Period. The system can always be corrupted if we're not vigilant but at least it makes sense not to empower an industry who uses our own money to get out of doing what we pay them for.

Well, like I said, I actually haven't read this bill so far, so I can't exactly knock it down.

 

It seems to me that this bill will create more government bureaucracy to enact further regulation of the industry.

If that's the case, I could only support this bill if a) free market solutions don't prevent corruption and b) the judicial system has failed to prevent corruption.

I think the current corporate lobby system makes a) instrinsically impossible. And I think choice b) has been largely unsuccessful so far.

 

I'd like to see a) taken care of first... tackle the larger problems before coming up with more legislation to fix a subset of that problem. Otherwise, the new bureaucracy you create is just as prone to corruption as what you had before, and you wind up with worse government policy, not better ones.

 

It's like corporations using the Sherman anti-trust act, designed to prevent monopolies, to break up labor unions.

 

That's why I like this bill (so far as I've skimmed it). It's going to allow insurance companies to compete, but it's going to set a standard that won't allow for the ludicrous profits at the expense of good health that happen now. And no more of this denial of claim crap. Allow doctors to heal the sick and injured.

That's what I really hope to avoid. It's almost a forgone conclusion without some major league stumping.

Like I said though, I'd rather see if a free market solution can solve this problem first... in a way that is impossible with our current system.

 

I'd like to see an insurance companies compete to reduce costs and raise benefits, or risk losing customers... just like in any other free market.

 

Then, if coverage continues to get denied, I'd like to see it brought up in the judicial system, potentially under a violation of a terms of service on the part of the company. And, if that doesn't work, bring in legislation to erase a loophole.

 

Right now, lobbyists make these steps impossible... but I think we're jumping to the last step without trying the other ones first.

[bascule]

I'm confused, why are we concentrating on health insurance for everyone?

 

Hillary is, but it seems like at this point she's irrelevant

[Saryctos]

Would be nice if health insurance would stop inflating the prices for those of us without insurance that pay in cash...After reading that bill, it seems it will only make it more costly.

People enrolled by the national system can only recieve these benefits from public, or non-profit clinicians ONLY. So, that means 0 private physicians will be treating anyone under this insurance plan.

 

I really don't see a national health insurance plan as fixing anything. The problem with healthcare is that it costs a lot of money. Instead of coming up with ways to help people pay it, why not focus on how to reduce the cost of care? I've never been a fan of anything related to insurance. If I don't need it, why pay for it? If I do need it, I'm relying on someone else to pay it for me. This means overall that the insurance companies have to be taking in more money than they spend to keep afloat. Which means people pay out, in total, more money than they need as a whole for health care. More money in a system than is needed just inflates the cost for everyone.

[doG]

Basically, we are trying to achieve what most of the other nations with national healthcare systems have: free healthcare or healthcare insurance provided by the government.

 

For the record: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE HEALTHCARE. All healthcare in national healthcare systems is paid for by someone and it's not the government. The only money the government can give to anyone for anything is money that it's taken from its population.

 

I'm getting up a head of steam to put some support behind a national health care program. The US healthcare system has been hijacked by insurance carriers whose business is seemingly inimicable to good health care; they make more money if they neglect our health and deny our claims.

 

The insurance companies and health manglement companies have become so wealthy and powerful...

 

I challenge you support this. I went looking for stocks to invest in and none of the sites I visited listed any health insurance companies as good picks. Stock charts for national companies like Aetna and Humana reflect a decrease in stock value. A look at Tenet Healthcare's stock, one of the nations largest hospital chains with more than 510 hospitals and over 450 other facilities, in both the 5 and 10 year charts shows a loss.

 

Consider also that health insurance is not like car insurance. Everyone has to buy car insurance whether they will ever use it or not but the majority of health insured are those that need and use it. Health insurance companies are not making tons of money collecting from people that they are not having to pay out on.

 

Why are health costs what they are in the U.S.? Many factors are costing the few that pay into the health system an exponentially growing cost. Doctors are passing on the ever increasing cost of their malpractice insurance netted from the ever increasing rate of malpractice claims. Not that there's an actual increase in malpractice, just the expectation of many to use the court as a lottery to win big money. Doctors are not allowed to be human anymore, they must be perfect, no mistakes allowed.

 

Hospitals are passing on all of the increasing costs of liability insurance netted from increased litigation and the increased cost of treating an exponentially growing population of illegal aliens. Every product they buy has increasing liability insurance costs attached. Fear of class action reprisal has companies spending more and more to protect themselves from a catastrophic award that could put them out of business. 2 hospitals in a 30 mile radius from where I live have gone bankrupt and closed their doors in the last 10 years. This is not because they are making tons of money in the current system.

 

Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on R&D for a hundred drugs only to get one approved and then they have to consider that one drug may yield a class action suit 30 years down the road. They are passing on all of the R&D costs and the price of liability insurance in the small percentage of drugs that make it to market. Big companies like Pfizer, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb all show losses in their stocks. They are not good investments at this time.

 

Health insurance for everyone is a goal we should ultimately try to achieve but the current system has many problems that need to be fixed and putting the government in charge is not a good way to get things fixed. Most of the time it is only a way to make things worse. IMO we should work toward fixing the problems in our system instead of simply putting the government in charge of it.

[ParanoiA]

But the system we have *now* is corrupt. Where is the competition when the insurance companies are networked? Why fear government intervention?

 

Because it's government intervention that got us into this mess. For crying out loud, pharmaceutical companies in america were artificially protected by the government basically wiping out competition - Canadian imports. This is entirely a perverse form of socialism mixed with capitalism - the worst parts of each. Government intervention did that.

 

Now, I realize your take may be that it was the *wrong* intervention, but isn't that what you get when you ignore the natural dynamics, the inherent checks and balances, of the free market? Regulation is a necessary evil, but we take this WAY too far. We have eliminated competition with government intervention and now we're blaming corporations for being corporations.

 

And, don't you see an incremental insurance "conditioning" mentality here? Everytime we go to the doctor, for any little thing, it's an insurance claim. Why? I mean, I know why we do it right now under this corrupt format, but why isn't that a big clue to everyone?

 

Insurance should be used for select conditions, not as your "account". I should only need to use an insurance card for serious freaking medical problems - not routine doctor visits.

 

As long as insurance is an essential "requirement", then costs will never, ever go down. There is NO competition in effective mandated insurance. And this bill appears to be a huge investment in the very corruption you're fighting against. I say down with traditional notions of medical funding. It's time to think new.

[Phi for All]

For the record: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE HEALTHCARE. All healthcare in national healthcare systems is paid for by someone and it's not the government. The only money the government can give to anyone for anything is money that it's taken from its approved and then they have to consider that one drug may yield a class acpopulation.

Well duh. I'm sorry, but duh. I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost.

 

The point here is where the money collected goes, to a government program that works in many other countries or to a company who makes more money by denying you coverage.

 

I challenge you support this. I went looking for stocks to invest in and none of the sites I visited listed any health insurance companies as good picks. Stock charts for national companies like Aetna and Humana reflect a decrease in stock value. A look at Tenet Healthcare's stock, one of the nations largest hospital chains with more than 510 hospitals and over 450 other facilities, in both the 5 and 10 year charts shows a loss.

HMOs and health insurance companies are allowed to claim the assets they accrue to cover themselves as operating expenditures instead of profit, to a certain amount. The amounts vary by state but here are the Texas laws. Please note:

An HMO must maintain assets in an amount equivalent to its required minimum net worth in accordance with Insurance Code Article 20A.13A(d).

While sheltering these monies is vital to maintaining their businesses, this often makes the insurance company's P&L statements look like they're losing money. I recall a memo from one of the big boys in the HMO field that found it's way to the media. In it an executive was bemoaning the fact that it was very hard finding a company to manage the $950M cash portfolio they suddenly found themselves with.

 

Consider also that health insurance is not like car insurance. Everyone has to buy car insurance whether they will ever use it or not but the majority of health insured are those that need and use it. Health insurance companies are not making tons of money collecting from people that they are not having to pay out on.

I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that the only people who get medical insurance are those who need and use it? I think that's wrong. And in Colorado, you're *required* to have auto insurance but you don't have to prove it until you're involved in an accident or get pulled over. Many uninsured motorists just claim to have insurance so they can get their license plates.

 

Why are health costs what they are in the U.S.? Many factors are costing the few that pay into the health system an exponentially growing cost. Doctors are passing on the ever increasing cost of their malpractice insurance netted from the ever increasing rate of malpractice claims. Not that there's an actual increase in malpractice, just the expectation of many to use the court as a lottery to win big money. Doctors are not allowed to be human anymore, they must be perfect, no mistakes allowed.

What do you mean by "the few that pay into the health system"? The Census Bureau released in 2005 that only 16% of Americans are uninsured, so the vast majority pay into the health system.

 

Perhaps people are requiring more from their doctors because they only visit in an emergency, or when they simply can afford no other means than to use their insurance, risking a rate increase. Perhaps malpractice would go down if people saw their doctors more regularly, giving the doctor more information for diagnosis and opportunities for preventative measures. Remove the fear of insurance hassles and this objection might go away.

 

Hospitals are passing on all of the increasing costs of liability insurance netted from increased litigation and the increased cost of treating an exponentially growing population of illegal aliens. Every product they buy has increasing liability insurance costs attached. Fear of class action reprisal has companies spending more and more to protect themselves from a catastrophic award that could put them out of business. 2 hospitals in a 30 mile radius from where I live have gone bankrupt and closed their doors in the last 10 years. This is not because they are making tons of money in the current system.

I would like to hear how countries with national healthcare services handle things like malpractice. Anyone from one of these countries have any input on professional liability for doctors?

 

Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on R&D for a hundred drugs only to get onetion suit 30 years down the road. They are passing on all of the R&D costs and the price of liability insurance in the small percentage of drugs that make it to market. Big companies like Pfizer, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb all show losses in their stocks. They are not good investments at this time.

Wouldn't it be nice if the pharms would open their R&D records to congressional investigators or other independent auditors so we could see if any of this is really true? We do know that much of what they claim as costs are already tax deductible as part of doing business. Many pharms declare it costs them $500M in R&D for every drug they come up with, but using information we can actually verify we see the cost is more like $60-70M for the average drug brought to market. The pharms also forget to remind us that over half the R&D money for the most popular drugs comes from taxpayer funding. If the pharms aren't making very much profit, as you claim, then why has Fortune magazine named them the top earning industry for return on revenues every year since 1985? If pharmaceutical R&D is so risky, why are their earnings three times on average what the other industries are in the Fortune 500? Don't forget that about four out of five new drugs are copying R&D done on other drugs. Only 20% of new drugs are considered innovative and would require more outlay.

 

Health insurance for everyone is a goal we should ultimately try to achieve but the current system has many problems that need to be fixed and putting the government in charge is not a good way to get things fixed. Most of the time it is only a way to make things worse. IMO we should work toward fixing the problems in our system instead of simply putting the government in charge of it.

I disagree here. Putting the government in charge does not automatically insure failure. I liked it when the government ran our utilities; I pay LOTS MORE now that my energy is privatized. I've never seen a single program the government gave up to private industry that worked out better for us. They aren't the best providers for most things, but I think this is something they could do well. Hopefully we'll eventually drop the idea of "insurance" and just pay for our healthcare through taxes like other countries.

 

Because it's government intervention that got us into this mess. For crying out loud, pharmaceutical companies in america were artificially protected by the government basically wiping out competition - Canadian imports. This is entirely a perverse form of socialism mixed with capitalism - the worst parts of each. Government intervention did that.

Intervention urged by lobbyists who are more active in the lives of the politicians than the public they represent. It's our fault for not being loud enough long enough.

 

Now, I realize your take may be that it was the *wrong* intervention, but isn't that what you get when you ignore the natural dynamics, the inherent checks and balances, of the free market? Regulation is a necessary evil, but we take this WAY too far. We have eliminated competition with government intervention and now we're blaming corporations for being corporations.

This is so obviously one of those areas where the might of the mega-corp is able to thwart the intent of the system. Paying lobbyists and spinning stories to the public to help pass laws that favor your market is not supposed to be part of the process. The blame is with us for allowing the corporations to scam the system but this is not the way corporations should be run either.

As long as insurance is an essential "requirement", then costs will never, ever go down. There is NO competition in effective mandated insurance. And this bill appears to be a huge investment in the very corruption you're fighting against. I say down with traditional notions of medical funding. It's time to think new.

I don't see this bill as an investment in further corruption, but I do agree that it's not my best choice for what I'm fighting for. I would much rather have the whole idea of insurance done away with. You shouldn't have to worry about whether your coverage can disappear on a technicality. You shouldn't have to neglect your health because you're saving your insurance for serious freaking medical problems.

 

I want to be realistic though. I know change will probably come a bit at a time. Still, a big part of me would love to see Americans stand up to their government and demand change. The government should be much more afraid of us than they are.

[Realitycheck]

Everywhere you go, if you need care, there is some place obligated to give it to you, whether you are covered or not. Public hospitals, teaching hospitals, etc. Some just trash your credit, some have insurance programs set up in-house, much of it is likely largely subsidized by Medicare and state medical aid. Except for teaching hospitals, much of the care will not be top notch, though the pay rates for interns and residents leaves a lot to be desired, making up the difference. This level of care should be processed as a whole, added to everyone's taxes so that everyone has basic care privileges.

 

If people want to have access to higher value benefits, this is where insurance comes in. There are plenty of people who will subscribe to this type of plan to get the type of quality benefits that they are accustomed to paying for. The basic plan is insured by federal oversight, but people get credit for federal withholding if they want to go with a premium outside provider. This is the only way I see it working. It allows tiers of quality, EVERYBODY is covered, the accounting shouldn't be too terribly difficult, but it could create a new branch of government, yet should streamline the process considerably. Frankly, Medicare should reorganize and assume this role. If the FBI can do it, so can Medicare.

[bascule]

It'll help us stay competitive in the global economy, improve the standard of living and, if it's done right, cost us LESS than it does now. What's not to like?

 

That's really the point. Any right/left bickering about the obligation of a society to provide healthcare as a human right can be set aside in the light of the fact that the cost of care for everyone will decrease at the same time you can set aside any worries of being denied critical catastrophic care like an organ transplant. Sure, access to care will be less timely for the affluent, but then again you'll be paying a lot less.

[Pangloss]

Well duh. I'm sorry, but duh. I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost.

 

You shouldn't speak for others any more than others should speak for you, Phi.

 

I think many healthcare partisans try to convey EXACTLY that message, or at the very least try to convince lower-income earners that the only people paying will be the wealthy, which, given the power at their disposal, is probably exactly the opposite of how it will be. (Though I stand by what I said earlier.)

[Phi for All]

I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost.[/quote']You shouldn't speak for others any more than others should speak for you, Phi.

Come on, I didn't. Speaking for others would have looked like this: "Nobody thinks healthcare has no cost". I confined my remarks to my personal observations.

 

I think many healthcare partisans try to convey EXACTLY that message, or at the very least try to convince lower-income earners that the only people paying will be the wealthy, which, given the power at their disposal, is probably exactly the opposite of how it will be. (Though I stand by what I said earlier.)

I'd like to see some examples of the first half of your first sentence. As I said, I haven't heard of anyone who thinks healthcare has no cost.

 

I agree that programs like this one are often couched in terms of the wealthy paying more while the opposite is usually true. Sometimes I think we need to devise a test for those who vote that ranks their ability to untangle the spin that's been engineered into these resolutions.

[ParanoiA]

This is so obviously one of those areas where the might of the mega-corp is able to thwart the intent of the system. Paying lobbyists and spinning stories to the public to help pass laws that favor your market is not supposed to be part of the process. The blame is with us for allowing the corporations to scam the system but this is not the way corporations should be run either.

 

Ah, the mighty government ISN'T a "mega-corp" thwarting the intent of the system? You don't think that by acting like a corporation and providing health insurance - a business product - on a scale that Wal-mart can only dream about and makes Halliburton look like a small business - that you aren't thwarting the system? Yes, that's not the way corporations nor government should be run.

 

I cannot accept any solution that isn't a solution. Anything short of treating the root of the problem, is augmenting the problem.

 

I don't see this bill as an investment in further corruption, but I do agree that it's not my best choice for what I'm fighting for. I would much rather have the whole idea of insurance done away with. You shouldn't have to worry about whether your coverage can disappear on a technicality. You shouldn't have to neglect your health because you're saving your insurance for serious freaking medical problems.

 

To me, when you push this kind of legislation, you remove all hope of ever correcting the actual problem. You shouldn't have to have insurance to see someone for a cold. Licensing regulations keep me from seeing a qualified nurse for my ills, oh no, I have to see "the doctor". What a great business boost from the government - the public is mandated to do business with them. Well gee, what kind of competition is that?

 

That's why it costs me over a hundred bucks to get a 3 dollar prescription for Amoxicylin. That's also why I have to have insurance to see them.

 

I once tried to pay cash for a doctor visit since my insurance wouldn't cover any costs associated with workman's comp - they looked at me like I was crazy and the doctor still refused. I was forced to get treatment from some weirdo that worked for the workmen's comp insurance company, in a creepy "warehouse" office with hardly anyone around. He smelled like he smoked two cigarettes at once and looked like he hadn't bathed in a week.

 

Insurance is so ingrained in our thinking and in the system and that is a huge problem. Anything short of addressing this is the equivalent of spin and investment in further corruption. The healthcare system is wrong by design. I'd rather get out of this proverbial box rethink the notions it's built on.

[Phi for All]

Ah, the mighty government ISN'T a "mega-corp" thwarting the intent of the system? You don't think that by acting like a corporation and providing health insurance - a business product - on a scale that Wal-mart can only dream about and makes Halliburton look like a small business - that you aren't thwarting the system? Yes, that's not the way corporations nor government should be run.

I think the government is being used by many who have the financial and political power to do so, and in some cases government is being abused. I don't see the government as a mega-corp entity, but more as a tool that can be used by anyone. The tool can be useful or it can be abused by those who would use it against many to help a few. Again, I would like to know if other countries with national healthcare view it as thwarting the system and creating a mega-corp.

 

I cannot accept any solution that isn't a solution. Anything short of treating the root of the problem, is augmenting the problem.

I think if people are going to get off their asses in this country to motivate their representatives to change this flawed system, we'd better do it right the first time. Halfway measures at this juncture will insure that we're stuck halfway for a long time. The bulk of Americans don't challenge the system with any regularity.

 

To me, when you push this kind of legislation, you remove all hope of ever correcting the actual problem. You shouldn't have to have insurance to see someone for a cold. Licensing regulations keep me from seeing a qualified nurse for my ills, oh no, I have to see "the doctor". What a great business boost from the government - the public is mandated to do business with them. Well gee, what kind of competition is that?

The kind of competition you get when representatives represent only those with money.

That's why it costs me over a hundred bucks to get a 3 dollar prescription for Amoxicylin. That's also why I have to have insurance to see them.

I'm sure it's probably like the worst of the pyramid scams. You'll never get a decent price for something when so many people who helped put it in place need to be paid their cut.

 

I once tried to pay cash for a doctor visit since my insurance wouldn't cover any costs associated with workman's comp - they looked at me like I was crazy and the doctor still refused. I was forced to get treatment from some weirdo that worked for the workmen's comp insurance company, in a creepy "warehouse" office with hardly anyone around. He smelled like he smoked two cigarettes at once and looked like he hadn't bathed in a week.

One of the few times anyone will pass the buck when the buck's in cash.

 

Insurance is so ingrained in our thinking and in the system and that is a huge problem. Anything short of addressing this is the equivalent of spin and investment in further corruption. The healthcare system is wrong by design. I'd rather get out of this proverbial box rethink the notions it's built on.

I agree that the concept of insurance is what needs to be broken. It's like we're betting that something bad is going to happen to us and the insurance company is betting it won't.

[Pangloss]

I agree that programs like this one are often couched in terms of the wealthy paying more while the opposite is usually true.

 

Well, would you agree that they often ignore the issue of cost, then? Because I think that is really an important point -- everyone here may know that, but not everyone out there knows that.

 

I happen to think it's worth the cost, but I also think that the reason poll numbers are climbing is the notion that it is, in fact, free healthcare, at least as far as their wallets are concerned.

[Phi for All]

Well, would you agree that they often ignore the issue of cost, then? Because I think that is really an important point -- everyone here may know that, but not everyone out there knows that.

 

I happen to think it's worth the cost, but I also think that the reason poll numbers are climbing is the notion that it is, in fact, free healthcare, at least as far as their wallets are concerned.

If the costs get ignored or people view a change in healthcare as being free, it may be that many people (me included) are assuming that the money spent on insurance now would simply be paid to the government in the form of taxes. I'm led to believe HR 676 assumes that the cost of national healthcare with everyone participating will be lower than what we pay for medical insurance and out-of-pocket costs now.

 

In that way, I suppose you could say it'll be free as far as their wallets are concerned. But I don't know anyone who thinks that insurance money will go back into their pockets. Maybe a portion but not all.