MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The Horrors of Un-Socialized Medicine
There's a lot of fearful talk these days about the prospect of “government bureaucrats making health care decisions for you” if health care reform goes
Leave a comment
Yes eliminate compitition in health care I,m sure that will help advancements in medicine. I pay for my health insurance and want to keep it that way because then I can control the quality of it. This is just a way for people who do not plan to try and get people to take care of them. I don’t wanna pay anymore of my money to people who make bad life decision such as using meth and smoking. I spend enough tax dollars on that already.
All I can tell you is get a better health plan, maybe your dollar a month policy only covered what it said it did when you signed up for it. Do you read what you sign because if you do that, maybe you would have realized you needed a better one. My experiences have been excellent and I have health problems as well, and why wouldn’t you give the company name. Afriad of getting sued or your story discredited. Did you find this story on one of Obama’s websites?
Un socialized medicine- resorting to socialism, yeah look what socialism has done for France, and all those commie nations. Go ask them for health care you might get it, but don’t be expecting to be cured of anything. Take the compition out of it that always furthers advancement. Lets make healthcare like the DMV sounds great.
bruce, you are just as stupid as i thaught, your choice for an insurer proves that! for those stupid enough to not read the small print, well, perhaps letting someone else make your decisions would be a good thing! im so glad the rest of us are not that ignorant! “DONT GET FOOLED AGAIN”
“bruce, you are just as stupid as i thaught [sic], your choice for an insurer proves that!”
If you think the provisions of my policy are at all unusual, you don’t know much about health insurance and how it works. In fact I’d bet you yourself don’t have any health insurance at all. And BTW it’s not a $1-a-month policy, it’s a $400-a-month policy (that’s $4,800 a year, if you need help with the math).
But why am I arguing with people who are either too stupid to understand reality or too delusional to accept it? As Barney Frank said to one of your fellow wackos at a town hall meeting the other day, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.” Good-bye.
PS: For those who think my insurance coverage is particularly terrible because I was stupid and bought a bad policy, I suggest Googling “insurance company horror stories” and reading some of the articles you find. As I said, my company is generally considered one of the BETTER ones.
Right-wing loonies may feel free to disregard this suggestion — which, being unwilling to consider any facts that contradict their opinions, they will do anyway.
Oh, one other thing: I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to respond to anybody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name — his REAL name — on his comments.
Oh and one more thing if you don’t disclose every little thing about your medical history when you sign up for insurance you can be retroactively denied coverage. It could be as simple as a comment in your file about an x-ray – something you don’t even know about. $1 out of every $3 is health insurance profit. Sure health-care providers should make great livings, but I have real trouble with the insurance industry profiting by denying care.
You go Mr. Miller! I found your article said exactly what I have been thinking about my own insurance company and plan. But I can say that I am one of the lucky ones. I have a low deductible and I actually have insurance. I have a pre-existing condition though so if I lose my job, guess what, no insurance for me! And I work for a small employer that does not offer COBRA. So I’m pretty much screwed. OMIP is an option but it’s still expensive and has little coverage. (I’ve been on it before)
I used to work for a Blue Cross/Blue Sheild company and I know how insurance works. I guarantee all you other posters (idiots) have the same provisions that Mr. Miller does on his plan. Or like he said, don’t have insurance. In which case, why are you against a bill that could provide you with coverage? I guarantee you he can’t get a better plan. He’s lucky he has coverage at all. Insurance companies will find the cheapest way possible to pay for something, or try to get out of it any way they can. They will drop you if you get “too sick” or refuse to cover you if you have a pre-existing condition (which could be just about anything).
I have no fear of getting sued and neither does Mr. Miller, since what we are saying is the truth. If you don’t think it’s true, then take a look at your own insurance plan’s “fine print”. There is a huge list of exclusions (things the insurance co. won’t pay for no matter what), a list of prefered providers, you have “in network” benefits and “out of network” benefits. Heck, outside the state of Oregon, you may not have coverage at all unless you have Blue Cross. Every insurance plan has special circumstances for paying for medications. You have to try cheaper alternatives first, even if you and your doctor don’t agree with that. Same thing with procedures. They won’t pay for some expensive procedure unless you’ve tried something cheaper first. So at that point, they’ve actually spent more money covering ineffective procedures than if they just paid for the one you and your doctor chose.
So if you really think you have all that much “choice” with your insurance, then you are really ignorant. Making insurance available to all Americans does not make us socialists, it makes us civilized. There are no “socialist” government countries in western Europe, get your facts straight. They are run by a democracy, just as we are. They can see the bigger picture which is protecting their citizens. And no, not every form of national or govt-run health care is great. But take a look at the ones that are. Holland, for one, has a system similar to what the Obama administration is trying to do. They have a government run option as well as private insurance. They have excellent health care because the doctors do it because they want to help people (wow, what a concept) rather than to make a ton of money off the sick. Check out WHO for the best health care systems in the world. European nations are among the top, the US is way, way farther down that list.
And Mr. Miller, I saw Barney and that was AWESOME! These guys are just a bunch of lunatics. Good luck to you.
Thank you for writing this observation about health insurance companies and their many one sided horror stories. I am on of the unfortunate one’s that can’t afford insurance, and if anyone out there think’s I’m on welfare, sorry your wrong. I work a full time job for a small business man that cannot afford insurance for his two employee’s. I am not married, help support on child still at home, and two senior parent’s on a fixed income. Our health insurance companies in this country SUCK, and for the ones that can afford it they still have financial nightmares that sometimes go along(more times than not) with. The need for health care is bigger and to keep denying it is like and ostrich that buries their head in the sand. If you don’t like a public health system and you have your own health care, keep it. Yet for those such as myself that need and want a public health care system, at least then I can go to the doctor.
H. Bruce Miller says:
If you think the provisions of my policy are at all unusual, you don’t know much about health insurance and how it works. In fact I’d bet you yourself don’t have any health insurance at all. And BTW it’s not a $1-a-month policy, it’s a $400-a-month policy (that’s $4,800 a year, if you need help with the math).”
Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that insurance companies are not allowed to compete across State lines, and that Oregon has some of the most assinine mandates for insurers in the country?
“But why am I arguing with people who are either too stupid to understand reality or too delusional to accept it? As Barney Frank said to one of your fellow wackos at a town hall meeting the other day, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.” Good-bye.”
Yeah, a good example of why Democrats like Frank should be put out to pasture. The woman asked him a very well thought out question, and Frank made a fool of himself. Kind of like when Frank said in 2007 that Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, were solvent, and people should invest in them.
“PS: For those who think my insurance coverage is particularly terrible because I was stupid and bought a bad policy, I suggest Googling “insurance company horror stories” and reading some of the articles you find. As I said, my company is generally considered one of the BETTER ones.”
No one, not even Republicans, has said that the insurance industry does not need reform. It is just the manner in which it si to be reformed, and the majority of the country do not want socialized medicene.
You should ask yourself why is it that the Democrats are saying they will pass socialized (public option) medicene even if they have to do so without any Republicans, or even the “Blue Dog” Democrats. Ask yourself why the House Bill was passed with NO Republican amendments, or votes. Ask yourself why those same Congress critters, Frank included, will not agree to accept the same coverage as they are wanting the American people to accept. Ask yourself why they will not consider eliminating the rules that forbid competition between States; co-op insurance groups; health savings plans; tort reform; etc.
“Right-wing loonies may feel free to disregard this suggestion — which, being unwilling to consider any facts that contradict their opinions, they will do anyway.”
Who is disregarding facts? Socialized medicene is failing in every country that has it, and you want it here?
“Oh, one other thing: I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to respond to anybody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name — his REAL name — on his comments.”
Does that include Party Pooper, Steerpike, or several others who support your opinion?
I notice that all of your minions have “voted down” opposing posts, while “voting up” yours, and others. Do you really think a -2, or whatever, is going to make a difference, LOL.
“But I can say that I am one of the lucky ones. I have a low deductible and I actually have insurance.”
I used to have a lower deductible but I was faced with a choice between upping it to $5,000 or taking an enormous premium increase.
“I guarantee you he can’t get a better plan. He’s lucky he has coverage at all.”
Actually I’m not that unhappy with my insurance company aside from the high deductible and high premiums; unlike many other companies, they’ve never denied me a benefit to which I was legitimately entitled, or jerked me around for months before paying.
The point of the post was not to complain about my insurance company but to illustrate that this whole argument about “I want to be free to make my own health care decisions” is completely frickin’ BOGUS because we are NOT free — the insurance companies make many health care decisions for us, such as what doctors we can go to and what surgeries and tests and medications we can get. Unless you are paying all your own medical bills, SOMEBODY — whether it’s Medicare (i.e. the government) or an insurance company bureaucracy — is making health care decisions for you.
Insured woman says:
Miller won’t respond to you because you don’t have what it takes to post under your real name. However, I am sure he will give you a “vote up”, LOL
“In which case, why are you against a bill that could provide you with coverage?”
Because it is not real health insurance, of even health care, reform? Could it be?
Look, if the government establishes such a program what guarantee is there that it will do as it says, or in certain instances who in their right mind would want it to do as it says?
“I have no fear of getting sued and neither does Mr. Miller, since what we are saying is the truth.”
AHH, such a brave statement. First off. Miller did not name his company, and secondly, who the hell cares what you say? Are you so inane as to think an insuance company cares what you post in this forum?
“Heck, outside the state of Oregon, you may not have coverage at all unless you have Blue Cross.”
You may not even have it with Blue Cross thanks to the law forbidding interstate competition between insurance carriers, and have you ever noticed how many doctors will not take Medicare, Medicaid, or the Oregon Health Plan?
“Every insurance plan has special circumstances for paying for medications.”
The same is true for Part D of Medicare, or any other government run program. Even the VA has a preferred list of drugs.
“So if you really think you have all that much “choice” with your insurance, then you are really ignorant.”
And if you think the government run programs are going to be better you are also “really ignorant”.
“Making insurance available to all Americans does not make us socialists, it makes us civilized. There are no “socialist” government countries in western Europe, get your facts straight.”
Makes one wonder why they call it “socialized medicene”.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then perhaps it is a duck? Do you think just maybe?
“They are run by a democracy,”
Do you know why the Founders hated a Democracy?
“They can see the bigger picture which is protecting their citizens. And no, not every form of national or govt-run health care is great. But take a look at the ones that are. Holland, for one, has a system similar to what the Obama administration is trying to do. They have a government run option as well as private insurance.”
And they are going broke. However, Obama has said he wants to eliminate private insurance.
“They have excellent health care because the doctors do it because they want to help people (wow, what a concept) rather than to make a ton of money off the sick. Check out WHO for the best health care systems in the world. European nations are among the top, the US is way, way farther down that list.”
The last report of WHO was in 2000. Maybe you should do some more current research.
“And Mr. Miller, I saw Barney and that was AWESOME! These guys are just a bunch of lunatics. Good luck to you.”
Yep, that is why they are the majority, and the folks like Frank will probably lose in their next election, and why the Democrats are going to change the rules, again, so they can pass this trash without the votes of Republicans, or “Blue Dog” Democrats.
Aren’t you glad you voted for such a “transparent” government, and one that seeks “bi-partisanship”. What a joke people like you are. You got your heads so far stuck up the dung pile you can’t see daylight.
Answer me one question. Why should the hard working Americans pay for the health care of those who have CHOSEN not to work, or earn a living? Why should they pay for the insurance of those who make over 50,000, and have decided not to buy insurance? Why should they pay for the insurance of people who are here illegally? Why should those who are on medicare give up some of their benefits so the lazy, and slovenly, can be insured?
Care to try?
Kenneth, I would not say that calling the bill a “Nazi policy”, while brandishing a photoshoped picture of the president as Hitler, a well thought out question. And do your homework before you spread more lies about socialized medicine in other countries. Not all of them are failing, in fact very few are.
Republicans love scare tactics, this is what it all comes down to. Bush’s administration scared the US people with his WMD lies, his bogus elevated levels of terror, and now the GOP is leading the wonderful smear of lies regarding an optional public health plan.
Here’s a tip: If you don’t want to have public health care, then don’t go on the plan! But your insurance premiums will probably be lower since it will create some competition in the marketplace. You’ll probably have more access to benefits you may not have right now such as chiropractic care, accupuncture, etc since everyone will be competing with one another.
Wow, that sounds just plain awful!
“Answer me one question. Why should the hard working Americans pay for the health care of those who have CHOSEN not to work, or earn a living? Why should they pay for the insurance of those who make over 50,000, and have decided not to buy insurance? Why should they pay for the insurance of people who are here illegally? Why should those who are on medicare give up some of their benefits so the lazy, and slovenly, can be insured?”
Guess what…we already are! We are paying for it in our higher premiums dimwit! Here’s how it works: The uninsured go to the ER for EVERYTHING. They can’t pay for the huge bill they get for everything from a sniffy nose to a surgery. The hospitals lose money. They charge more for their services, knowing the insurance companies will pay. The insurance companies have to pay out more on claims. In an effort to keep their pockets loaded, the insurance companies charge higher premiums, drop members that cost them too much, deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. Then it forces employers to either lay people off (more uninsured), stop providing insurance (more uninsured) or end up reducing their plans to a cheap high deductible plan (more people who can’t pay hospital bills).
As for your other comments about my post, well they don’t even deserve a response. You aren’t worth it. Enjoy your FOX News!
“Aren’t you glad you voted for such a “transparent” government, and one that seeks “bi-partisanship”.”
Bipartisanship with the Party of No is impossible. They said from the get-go that they wanted this administration to fail, and that’s their Number One agenda — to do their best to make it fail, the consequences for the country be damned. Their strategy is to obstruct and obfuscate. The only “health care reform” the Party of No would agree to is NO REFORM AT ALL. They want things to stay just the way they are because the insurance companies who have them in their hip pocket like it that way.
Obama has wasted too much precious time and made too many concessions already trying to look “bipartisan” and “negotiate” with the Party of No. To hell with “bipartisanship.” We’ve got the votes; ram it through and let the Party of No and its army of loons go f##k themselves.
H. Bruce Miller says:
Bipartisanship with the Party of No is impossible. They said from the get-go that they wanted this administration to fail, and that’s their Number One agenda — to do their best to make it fail, the consequences for the country be damned.”
Kind of early even for you to rewrite history, is it not?
In the beginning, after the election, the Republicsn Party said it would be glad to work with the Democrats, and Obama. However, Pelosi then changed the House rules, and forbid any amendments, or bills, from the Republicans to pass from Committee to be voted on, nor were any amendments to be accepted on the floor.
Then Limbaugh made his comment, and we can now see why he would want Obama to fail, and the leftwing loonies such as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama himself, declared Limbaugh to be the “de facto” leader of the Republican Party, and then began the lie that the Republicans were the party of “no”, (something you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker) because the Republicans would not bend over, and accept whatever the Democrats wanted. We see that now with another change in rules in the Senate where the Dems are saying they will pass this bill with, or without, any Republican votes, or even the “Blue Dog” vote. Reid knows he cannot get the formerly required 60 votes, so now he wants to use the rarely used “reconciliation” voting procedure.
“Their strategy is to obstruct and obfuscate.”
That has been the policy of rhe Democrats for 60 years as could be seen in Republican nominations for USSC Justices, or federal court seatings.
“The only “health care reform” the Party of No would agree to is NO REFORM AT ALL. They want things to stay just the way they are because the insurance companies who have them in their hip pocket like it that way.”
Another lie you seem to have willingly swallowed in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Republicans have proposed many changes to the current system such as tort reform, health savings accounts, fraud investigations, co-op insurance groups, eliminating preventing interstate competition, and other proposals.
“Obama has wasted too much precious time and made too many concessions already trying to look “bipartisan” and “negotiate” with the Party of No.”
Care to give an example? He most recently stated that the bill would be passed by the end of the year with, or without, Republcan participaion.
“To hell with “bipartisanship.” We’ve got the votes; ram it through and let the Party of No and its army of loons go f##k themselves”
Yep, and to hell with the opinion of the people too. Just as long as you spoiled little children can get your way.
How many seats do you think you will lose in 2010? Most “experts” say a minimum of 20, and it will more then likely be an even greater number, and the Dems will lose control just as they did in ’94. Obama’s approval numbers are dropping like a rock, and you just don’t seem to “get it”.
H. Bruce Miller says:
Oh, one other thing: I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to respond to anybody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name — his REAL name — on his comments”
Then “insured woman” says:
“But I can say that I am one of the lucky ones. I have a low deductible and I actually have insurance.”
And Miller responded thus confirming what I said previously, ROFLMAO
“I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to respond to anybody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name — his REAL name — on his comments.”
And for how many years now, HB, have I been trying to get you to do that?
Sure glad this bunch of morons hangs out at your place, and not mine.
Swipies: Since the rest of your post boils down to the childish arguments of “You did it first” or “You’re another,” I’m only going to respond to this part:
“Republicans have proposed many changes to the current system such as tort reform, health savings accounts, fraud investigations, co-op insurance groups, eliminating preventing interstate competition, and other proposals.”
“Tort reform” (i.e. limiting the right of people to sue and collect damages for medical malpractice) is just another favor to the insurance companies. Right-wingers have been pushing it for decades.
Health savings accounts can’t begin to fill the need for people who can’t afford insurance. How many decades do you suppose it would take someone making minimum wage to save up enough for a bypass surgery?
As for “fraud investigations” I’m not clear what you mean. Medical fraud? Insurance fraud? Fine, of course, investigate all you want — who’s in favor of fraud? But again, this wouldn’t do anything for those who can’t afford insurance, nor would it significantly reduce health care costs.
Medical co-ops are not in themselves a bad idea; there are cases where they already are working well. But it would take a hell of a long time to set up enough of them to make a difference nationwide.
Allowing interstate competition among insurance companies would be a good thing, I think. But I doubt it would bring rates down enough to make insurance affordable for those who can’t afford it.
And since you’re in favor of competition, why are you against allowing the government to offer some in the form of a public option? Do you truly believe it would put private insurance companies out of business? Private companies compete successfully with the government in a number of areas, such as delivery services (as Obama noted) and education. State universities have not exactly put Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and dozens of other private colleges out of business, despite their (generally) lower tuition. If private insurance companies offer good products at reasonable prices they will not lack for customers. But they might have to clean up their act and stop trying to screw their customers.
The resistance to the public option among conservatives stems fundamentally, I believe, from the entrenched, simplistic right-wing dogma that “business good, government bad.”
“Obama’s approval numbers are dropping like a rock”
“How many seats do you think you will lose in 2010? Most “experts” say a minimum of 20″
You don’t say. And who are these “experts”? Fox News “analysts”?
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). July 24-27, 2009. N=1,011 adults nationwide. Results below based on registered voters.
“What is your preference for the outcome of next year’s congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?”
Democrats: 46% Republicans: 39%
You guys were surprised when you lost control of Congress in 2006 and equally surprised when you lost even more seats, and the presidency, in 2008. Slow learners, aren’t you?
“And Miller responded thus confirming what I said previously, ROFLMAO ”
I wanted to clarify that I wasn’t bitching about my own insurance company per se, just pointing out that people are not “free to make their own health care decisions” because insurance companies already make many of them. The claim that under “government insurance” people will lose their “freedom” is just a conservative bogeyman.
BTW I notice that since I said I wouldn’t respond to anonymous attacks all the attacks have stopped, except those from Swipies.
H. Bruce Miller says:
Oh, one other thing: I’ve decided that from now on I’m not going to respond to anybody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name — his REAL name — on his comments”
H. Bruce Miller now says:
“BTW I notice that since I said I wouldn’t respond to anonymous attacks all the attacks have stopped, except those from Swipies.”
Whwere did you mention “anonymous attacks” in your first post, and how did I attack you?
Oh yes. Simply pointing out your lies, and hypocrisy, is an attack. Geesh, how could I forget that leftwing rule.
H. Bruce Miller says:
Swipies: Since the rest of your post boils down to the childish arguments of “You did it first” or “You’re another,” I’m only going to respond to this part:”
Oh, I see. Since your BS was uncovered you are now going to hide behind some childish remark.
“”Tort reform” (i.e. limiting the right of people to sue and collect damages for medical malpractice) is just another favor to the insurance companies. Right-wingers have been pushing it for decades.”
Obvioulsy you consider getting millions for a person who spills hot coffee in her lap as a justifiable cause. However, if you see what they did in Texas you would understand what tort reform is in the real world, not just your world of “bogeymen”.
“Health savings accounts can’t begin to fill the need for people who can’t afford insurance. How many decades do you suppose it would take someone making minimum wage to save up enough for a bypass surgery?”
Again you misunderstand the concept. Do some research on the topic, and then comment with some form of knowledge.
“As for “fraud investigations” I’m not clear what you mean. Medical fraud? Insurance fraud? Fine, of course, investigate all you want — who’s in favor of fraud? But again, this wouldn’t do anything for those who can’t afford insurance, nor would it significantly reduce health care costs.”
Sure it would. Over 20% of all medicare costs are due to fraud. In NYC it was discovered that about 40% of medicaid expenses were lost due to fraud.
Of course, why would the leftwing want to investigate this when it is much more important to investigate the salaries, and expenses, of insurance companies. BTW, Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do so, however, that is not stopping Waxman.
“Medical co-ops are not in themselves a bad idea; there are cases where they already are working well. But it would take a hell of a long time to set up enough of them to make a difference nationwide.”
Why? I you want to provide tax incentives with taxpayer funds why not do this?
“Allowing interstate competition among insurance companies would be a good thing, I think. But I doubt it would bring rates down enough to make insurance affordable for those who can’t afford it.”
In Maine it costs about $789 for the exact same policy that would cost you $2200 in New jersey. You do the math.
“And since you’re in favor of competition, why are you against allowing the government to offer some in the form of a public option? Do you truly believe it would put private insurance companies out of business?”
Because government has an unfair advantage with umlimited income.
“Private companies compete successfully with the government in a number of areas, such as delivery services (as Obama noted) and education.”
And which ones are doing better? UPS & FedEx v USPS? Or even private schools, charter schools, and home schools, v public education?
“State universities have not exactly put Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and dozens of other private colleges out of business, despite their (generally) lower tuition.”
Again, when you go to look for a job which one will get you in the door?
“If private insurance companies offer good products at reasonable prices they will not lack for customers. But they might have to clean up their act and stop trying to screw their customers.”
Agreed. However, with State mandates it is somewhat hard to do on a national basis.
“The resistance to the public option among conservatives stems fundamentally, I believe, from the entrenched, simplistic right-wing dogma that “business good, government bad.””
And government has successively ran what program? Amtrak?
“You don’t say. And who are these “experts”? Fox News “analysts”?”
Bob Bechel for one. Stephonopolis (however you spell it), James Carville, for two more.
“NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). July 24-27, 2009. N=1,011 adults nationwide. Results below based on registered voters.
“What is your preference for the outcome of next year’s congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?”
Democrats: 46% Republicans: 39%”
Check out the latest Gallup, Pew, and others.
“You guys were surprised when you lost control of Congress in 2006 and equally surprised when you lost even more seats, and the presidency, in 2008. Slow learners, aren’t you?”
Since I didn’t vote for any Republicans, and haven’t save one, and that was Weldon, I wasn’t.
However, what good have the Democrats done in the 3 years they were in charge, hey?
I’m sure that website is non bias, and people can’t tell the story from there own non twisted points of veiw.
Bruce if your such an insurance expert didn’t you know your policy wasn’t any good. I didn’t respond because like many honest hard working Americans I work during the day. Your no hero just someone who is mad at his insurance company. Which is the mystery company. Oh yeah and this isn’t my real name so you don’t have to respond because I can see that makes you angry. The company matters because it means you are not afraid to be sued for what you said, you know, if it isn’t the truth.The whole truth and not your I’m a helpless victim version of the story.
I have had a health insurance policy through Blue Cross for the last eight years. They have never denied a proceedure or waived from the agreed co-pay structure. I am totally happy with my insurance and have never experienced the horrors eluded to in some of the previous comments. Yes, I do pay for this plan, which is fine with me, it’s my health care! I never expected someone else to pick up the bill for the professionals looking after my health! As for me, leave me alone, I don’t want your help or plan!
First, I am a Brit and I can not believe the lies I have read about our medical system. I would like to make a few comments here. Note, I pay taxes here.
1. We are already paying for the uninsured. Who do you think pays for the uninsured peoples visits to the ER? Since people have usually allowed a condition to become serious before going to the ER two things follow; 1. The cost of ER treatment is much higher than a normal doctor visit. 2 Because their condition has been allowed o get worse it will probably cost more to fix. I would rather have my taxes pay the cheaper cost of a regular doctors visit.
2. When I told a doctor in the UK that insurance companies here decide if they will pay for something. He said “Do you mean that someone with no medical training decides if a patient should get a medical treatment?” I said “Yes.” He said that that could not be true. After all he is a doctor and if he says someone needs a particular treatment or test, then that is what they need and what they should have. Wouldn’t that be nice?
3. The lack of preventative medicine here is distressing. It is much cheaper to prevent a problem than to fix one. However the insurance companies seem to be happy to take years of premiums and then dump you when a serious problem occurs. Again, I would rather my taxes go to prevention than cure.
4. On a different subject. I am worried about a trend I am now seeing. Namely that many people seem to believe that everything they read on the internet is true. Example; Someone made a false comment to me about health care in my country. When I tried to tell them the truth they would not listen, stating “But it must be true, I read it on the net.”
I am so bloody tired of the rhetoric that is playing out in health Care reform. Mr. Swipies I’m beginning to think is in the pocket of one of the local health care insurance companies with ll his negative mouthing about socialized medicine. I have family who live in Canada and have Canada Medical Insurance (or as some like to say Socialized medicine). My cousin got breast cancer and they were glad it was there, she received top line treatment and they could of afforded to come to the states for treatment. Her husband as a major VP with a bank. It was a long battle (six years with a remission) it ultimately took her life. But neither of them were negative about the medical treatment they received from the so called Socialized medicine that Canada has for it’s people. I recently asked Edgar what he thought of the system and the complaint’s some Americans are saying about them. He said he couldn’t understand it, because though not perfect he says that at least it was there and did the treatments it was supposed to do. What he doesn’t understand is why American are afraid of something they have never tried, and in that even in America with insurance they many Americans are not getting much needed test or treatments because their insurance companies won’t allow it or approve of it. In many way’s for those that seem to think that our Health Insurance System is OK, I think if you say socialized medicine as you call it is worse. Excuse me, when insurance that you pay for won’t authorize test, or treatments isn’t that socialized medicine at it’s worse.
By the way Mr. Swipies in a previous story regarding health care and a response you called me Mr. well sorry I’m all woman and want to correct you as to that issue.
Yeah we are already paying for the uninsured, and I’m not happy about it now so why would you think I would want to give them any more of my money. There lack of planning should not come at public expense. If people want british style health care move there we won’t miss ya. Obama’s approval fell because we don’t want it here. Canada’s close that would be another option.
And yes if they don’t agree with you they work for insurance company. It is all part of our big conspiracy to cheat you out of insurance.
The information I have received comes from the health minister of canada, a former haelth care minister who resides in British Columbia, a parlimentary member from Britain, and most recent studies done on health care systems from around the world as presented on Lou Dobbs who is doing a daily report on different countries each night. Then there are the discussions on Washington Journal.
The problem with most of you on the left side of issues is that you don’t really hear what is being said, nor can you seem to be able to comprehend what you read.
Take your breast cancer example. In the US the survival rate for breast cancer is around 77%. In Canada the rate is 56%. Perhaps that is why the health minister herself came to the US for treatment.
No one, not even the GOP, is saying that no reform is needed. The objection comes to one aspect of the reform as presented by the leftwing loonies in Congress, and the Senate, to the exclusion of any other. The GOP has presented several different prgrams that could help reform the system. However, the Democrat leaders, including Obama, have decided that none of them are worthy of consideration. Thus, while Pelosi has prevented any GOP amendments from being considered in Committee, or voted on, and has not allowed any to be presented on the floor of the House for a vote, she then makes the assinine claim, along with her minions, that the GOP is the “party of no”.
Now the leaders are saying that they will pass the so-called reform bill without any GOP votes, and even ignoring the “Blue Dog” Democrats.
Once again, the Democrats prove that they are more then willing to disregard the voice of the people, and any opposition, in order to get what they want. And then the consequences be damned since they will try to find someone else to blame when it fails.
And if I addressed you as “Mr.” in a previous thread I apologize. As far as I know I rarely address anyone as “Mr.”, or anything else aside from their name. The one exception I know of was to Thomas Ware who I assume is a male. The sex of a poster matters not to me, just the issue presented.
BTW, did you address the issues I made as directed to your post? If so, I didn’t see it.
When looking at creating more affordable health care for Americans, it seems to me that any realistic examination of the issues needs to include the discussion of creating a socialized medical system and the elimination of private insurance companies entirely. In my view, having a huge “for profit” industry padding the pockets of their shareholders, directly between the consumer and health care provider has to account for significant additional and unnecessary expense. All of us with insurance end up paying for those without coverage through higher premiums anyway, so maybe just paying for everyone via taxes would be more efficient. Plus, there would only be a single plan to administer. This may or may not be the ultimate solution, but in the search for the answer, it certainly needs to be put on the table along with every other option, and so far I’ve seen a distinct reluctance for our lawmakers of either party to do so. Could this be because their pockets are being heavily padded by the insurance industry as well?
I didnt write that last one because it, and wouldn’t because it is all beleif and has no basis. Its like watching celebrities share there opinions.
Medical care provider expense + Billions of dollars in Health Insurance company PROFITS = cost to the American citizen OR Medical care provider expense + a single plan administrative expense w/NO profit making = cost to the American citizen; which sounds less expensive? I’m not sure paying huge profits to a middle man is in the consumers best interest.
Perhaps someone can explain how it is?
Swipies…no response to my answered question? Hmmm…why is that??
Insured woman says:
Swipies…no response to my answered question? Hmmm…why is that??”
Perhaps it is because of this comment of yours:
“for your other comments about my post, well they don’t even deserve a response. You aren’t worth it. Enjoy your FOX News”
Perhaps you just aren’t “worth” a response.
Enjoy your “progressive” rags.
Here’s a story of a guy whose problems with his insurance company are insignificant compared to mine: psoriatic.wordpress.com. Took him about half a year for the insurance company to authorize drugs he needs to control his severe psoriasis.
Like I said, my company is considered one of the better ones.
BTW, critics of socialized medicine say that Canadians, Brits, French etc. have to wait for medical treatment — my wife has to wait until October to see a dermatologist.
I am an ER physician and see first-hand the troubles with the health care system, and they are multi-factorial crossing both sides of typically left and right-wing tenets. First, many people cannot afford health insurance due to climbing costs and increases for pre-existing conditions while insurance companies make 20-30% profit (a record margin over the past year). Secondly,HMOs make money by taking in premiums and rationing care to patients; this is how a socialized system would work; the end result would be the same in a socialized model. Thirdly, a socialized system that places no emphasis on competition for doctors/hospitals would result in work slow-downs and tremendous inefficiency, especially in conjunction with the ridiculous tort laws we have enabling frivolous suits: its safer to see fewer patients than more if the pay is the same. Along the same line, patients without any financial obligations would flock to all health care venues in droves for increasingly minor problems that could be treated with a grandma and chicken soup. I see this daily, as 95% of my patients in the ER are not emergent or even urgent, but are usually medicare, medicaid or self (no) pay. Another huge area, the idea touched on above is the need for tort reform. Without going into lenthly details, the lawyers are getting richer than anyone else while the rising costs of “defensive medicine” are compounding the current problems. Insurance should have portability across state lines and without regard for large buy-in groups (large company benefit packages) We have the greatest healthcare system in the world with the best professionals, but the system needs to be fixed, not scrapped, adjusted, not abandoned