Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    • What happens if your illness or injury is protracted and your nest-egg runs out?
    • What happens if you can't afford to pay into a plan?
    • What happens if your illness isn't covered under the plan?
    • What happens if the insurance company folds?

    Insurance is a gamble. I prefer not to gamble with my health, if I can at all afford it.

    From what I understand of the USA system, people have a greater option to choose or refrain from certain procedures, dependant on what they can afford (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'd hate to gamble with not taking a scan, just because it was going to leave me a little lean, or bump up my insurance premiums. Unfortunately I understand that this is the choice many people have to make every day, and not just with their own health but with that of their family, also.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24
    Did anyone catch the interview yesterday on the History channel with the president of The Hartford? He spoke about the importance the role of the property/casualty insurer plays today in our 'new world' with terrorism strikes. If there were no insurance on the buildings that got targeted by the terrorists, do you know who would be picking up the tab? Most likely you and I. Insurance spreads risk. That's just the bottom line.) Do you think the government should get in the property and casualty business too, because some choose not to insure their assets?

    Interesting piece from 'consumers affairs' regarding terrorist insurance and the government..sw

    >TRIA was passed hastily by Congress in October 2002 to provide a "net" for businesses and property owners to rely on in case of another terrorist attack. Currently, it insures losses up to 90 percent, while the principal insurer pays a deductible and "a 10 percent quota share of all reinsured losses."

    The government recoups its losses through what is called "terrorism insurance risk-spreading premiums." This means the insurance provider spreads out the costs by subjecting policyholders to a premium surcharge, up to a cap of 3 percent of the affected claim. Insurers that don't charge risk premiums can be hit with penalties of up to $1 million.

    In other words, the government pays for losses caused by terrorism with taxpayer money, then gets its money back by forcing insurers to charge policyholders extra money for their own coverage.

    TRIA is not without problems. It specifically excludes acts of domestic terrorism from its coverage, as well as any sort of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attack. So if a new Timothy McVeigh got his hands on a dirty bomb or a suitcase nuke and destroyed a major city, the survivors' losses wouldn't be covered by TRIA.

    A study by the Rand Corporation's Terrorism Risk Management Policy Center charges that TRIA's "rates at current low levels are likely to lead to widespread uninsured losses, which would slow recovery and magnify the economic consequences."

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    Lisa:

    I do believe this wholeheartedly. Which is the reason I signed up for supplemental benefits at work today. This is a policy that pays me cash when I have health issues. Yes, it's another $20 out of every paycheck. However, it pays me cash money in the event of an accident or disability. Money that can be used to pay co-pays, or for groceries, or whatever.

    So again, I am choosing to protect myself by planning ahead. Should I have to bail out those that choose not to? Should I feel sorry for the person who chooses not to pay the $20 per pay period, when their time comes (because we all know it will)? I don't think so.

    You are still having difficulty seeing the 'Big Picture'...I am happy for you that you have health insurance at all -- something that over 1/2 of working Americans are not even offered ! I had good health insurance all my life, until this summer, now, no insurance company will touch me.

    The enourmous profits could be better spent in a national health care program modeled after all the countries that already provide it. If insurance company employees need to transfer their skilled jobs to government jobs at least they'll have insurance. The best ideas need to be looked at and adopted here. That's my proposal. It's NOT like reinventing the wheel. It's in practice already.

    Should you feel sorry ? If you could recognise the plight of others who don't have the choices you have ? In my opinion, yes. But, I can't help you in that department.

    If there were no insurance on the buildings that got targeted by the terrorists, do you know who would be picking up the tab?

    Tell everyone the "rest of the story"... now that they had to pay out all that money (so nice of them) all businesses in the US are offered "Terrorist Insurance." Otherwise, there will be NO coverage for such acts ! When that was offered to me for my business, it DOUBLED the premium ! I declined. That's the "true" heart of of insurance company execs. if there's a chance they might have to pay, they either raise premiums an obscene amount for everyone or not cover it at all.

    Whatever building takes the place of the Twin Towers or other landmark or industrial plant that might be a target -- charge those corp. high premiums -- not everyone else. Before 9/11, I had coverage if somehow my business was damaged by terrorists. I lost that coverage that I had before...what was included will now cost me double.

    Rabbit

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow
    How, pray tell? By definition the 'working poor' are POOR. DUH!!!

    Duh? By definition. What is that definition? Do you define working poor as someone who works and draws a paycheck that is below the federal poverty level? Or do you define working poor as someone who works and makes a bit more than poverty level, but not significantly more? Where do you draw the line (a rhetorical question?)

    If my employer allowed me to work an average of 32 hours a week, insurance for me would cost $18 a week because I have achieved the highest level of accomplishments. If I had dependents, insurance would cost $36 per week. I could afford to pay those premiums if I worked 40 hours per week for my company. To buy private health insurance would cost me at least $250 per week. Those prices aren't current either. I can't afford to pay $1000 a month for health insurance just for me. I can't afford to pay that much for dependents either.

    Australians are paying 1 1/2 percent of their income in taxes to fund their health care. That's cheaper than $18 per week for me.It's most definitely cheaper than $36 per week for dependent coverage. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than $250 per week for private insurance that only covers me.

    Yes, even when we are considered "working poor" we can afford to pay taxes to fund some sort of affordable healthcare system that is available to all US citizens. 1 1/2 percent taxes would cost us $1.50 for every hundred dollars we make. If the tax was as high as 5%, it would only cost us $5 per every hundred we make. One trip to the doctor with lab work and Rx for one family member per month would cost more than that.

  • LDH
    LDH

    Does anyone have access to figures regarding overutiliation of socialized healthcare?

    I'll be on the road all day tomorrow so I won't be checking in, but this concerns me:

    1 1/2 percent taxes ;would cost us $1.50 for every hundred dollars we make. ;If the tax ;was as high as 5%, it would only cost us $5 per every hundred we make. One trip to the doctor with lab work and ;Rx for one family member ;per month would cost more than that.

    Also, does anyone have info on whether the costs of the 'tax' that fund socialized health care in other countries has remained stable with the increases in the cost of medical care?

    I'll try to find some resources too.

  • stillconcerned
    stillconcerned

    .LISA SAID;

    Look at what is happening to socialized retirement in this country. Who can we trust to manage the health care system? What happens when that is bankrupt and all of the health insurance companies have been put out of business?

    Precisely. Many do not trust our govt to handle the funds properly.

    There wil be no 'social security', as currently administered, for the 30 and 40-something crowd.

    Kimberlee d.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    http://secure.cihi.ca/

    This is the site for national healthcare data and it has a report there on stats for Canada for 2005 - tables also compare the GDP with that of 10 other countries and on a per capita basis. The US consistently outspends all other listed countries for healthcare and site after site reports the least satisfaction by Americans for their system. There are tables there that indicate spending costs for 20 years and since these rates are linked to taxes paid then that should the best indicator of increases for that period of time.

    This from the USA National Tables as below -

    >>>In relation to other countries, the US spends the most on health care, in both dollars and in the total share of economic activity. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, while the US spends roughly 13% of its GDP, Switzerland spends 10.7%, Germany spends 10.6%, Canada spends 9.1%, Japan spends 7.8%, and the United Kingdom spends 7.3% (6). Even though the high expenditure in the US may be equated with superior medical treatment, in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality, the health of the average American is below that of other industrialized nations. Data from the WHO in Table 2 show that in 1997, the US ranked 37 th in health system performance in comparison to other major nations (5). Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in the year 2008, the NHE will reach $2.055 trillion. This estimate amounts to encompass 14.4% of the GDP

    >>>>

    According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.

    An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.

    Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

    In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead.

  • stillconcerned
    stillconcerned

    wow! That's interesting...

    How do those figures equate, statistically? I mean how many served in Canada v how many by BC/BS?

    What factors were considered in evaluating 'satisfaction'?

    thanks sammie-

    kdn

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    You might find this tool useful for a comparison to Scotland, though the data is incomplete in places:

    http://www.sns.gov.uk/

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24
    What factors were considered in evaluating 'satisfaction'?

    I believe that all the countries involved in the gathering of the data use a decided formula based on many factors, but that must result in an accurate comparison per capita or per population, otherwise it would be of little value. Given that the amount of $$ already spent by the govt in the USA for the healthcare it has, it makes no sense from a financial perspective to continue the way it has - so it logically must boil down to politics + big business. If as a taxpaying individual, I am paying more in taxes already to fund a poor public fund, then why would I not simply want it switched to a better system that includes all people? The only reason that I wouldn't want to switch, is if I had something to lose financially.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit