Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I have been through a few nightmare scenarios with private health care insurance, as have most people. Once, I had taken my wife to the ER. She was in extraordinary agony (turned out later she needed to have her gall bladder removed, but we didn't know what was wrong at the time.) The doctor, standing in the ER looked at our insurance coverage, which required us to call in before going to the ER. "You can't just walk in here," he said to me. And he refused to do anything more. My wife was already on a gurney. I walked outside, picked up the payphone and dialed in to the ER. The nurse chuckled and said, "Come on in!" The doctor told us it wasn't an ER situation, go across the street to his office. So we left the ER, my wife could barely stand mind you, and we went across the street to his office. I saw him eventually walk across the street from the hospital carrying a coffee and into the office. When he got into the exam room with my wife he said "So, ya got a tummy ache, huh?" The fantasy that private health care insurance is some practically perfect system is an invention of lobbyists working hard to squash any sort of change to the system. Now, if I shared the above experience as an example of how national heath care sucks, those on the right would applaud it. Instead, it highlights but one example of how screwed up our health care system really is in the hands of private insurance, and it will be ignored by them.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie OK, so every payday, you go to the apple store. They have beautiful apples, but all they have is apples but an apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? So you continue to get your family's apples, but lately you've noticed that the quality of apples are declining; limited apple variaties, smaller and if they discover that someone has eaten too many apples, they will no longer let you in the store and you can't buy apples any more. Plus, you noticed that your neighbors down the street can't afford daily apples, so they don't eat apples until their vitamin deficiencies get so bad that they have to go to the emergency apple store, and those apples are REALLY expensive. So one day, you go to the apple store and you notice the same apples, but next to the apples there are oranges that the government has provided. The oranges are a little smaller, don't taste as good, but they are free. As people begin get the free oranges, the apple growers respond to falling apple sales by creating better, bigger apples for less money to compete with the free oranges. Now you can decide; do you want to spend the extra money for the big beautiful apples or get the smaller oranges for free. Maybe you decide to only get the oranges. Maybe you decide to get the oranges, but decide to spend a little extra money to supplement your orange diet with a few apple slices.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The fantasy that private health care insurance is some practically perfect system is an invention of lobbyists working hard to squash any sort of change to the system. >> Of course it's not perfect but it's rather presumptious to assume that the public option is going to be better. What may have worked out for you and your wife might not work out for another person.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>"You can't just walk in here," he said to me. And he refused to do anything more. My wife was already on a gurney.<< My wife had intense pains and bleeding when she was pregnant with our first child. We drove to the nearest emergency room, and had no idea if it was covered by our insurance or not. My wife is sobbing, talking about how scared she is she's going to lose her baby, and the ER nurse said they couldn't help because our insurance didn't cover us there. We rushed her to another hospital and they stabilized everything and he ended up ok. Let's stop pretending like this is preferable to other countries, where they don't run into this with emergencies. You go to a hospital, they take care of you. They have other flaws, yes, but that for-profit motive, that prevents people from getting the care they need, isn't ever-present.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Of course it's not perfect but it's rather presumptious to assume that the public option is going to be better.<< It's rather presumptuous to automatically assume it's going to be any worse. The irony in all this (well, there's lots of ironies, but this is a biggie) is people saying they are against "government run healthcare" because it might affect their Medicare coverage.
Originally Posted By DAR <<but that for-profit motive, that prevents people from getting the care they need, isn't ever-present.>> But they're a business and like all other businesses have to pay their employees a livable wage. And trust as someone who works in the insurance industry(life) I make a decent wage but nothing to jump up and down about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But the flaw in that assessment is somehow the NHS will be better than the private option and that's not going to be true.> The flaw in THAT assessment is you assume the private option is better. Dave has shown any number of ways that that is not the case. Other countries pay less for their health care than we do and by and large have better outcomes. No system is perfect. But this idea you have that the private system is inherently better is a myth; considering your profession I understand where it comes from, but the evidence just doesn't back you up.
Originally Posted By DAR The only problem I ever had was going to Walgreens I went to pick up my Lipitor. I had such switched carriers. It costs me $35 for a 90 day supply. When I picked it up that time it was $350 for the supply. The pharmacist looked at my records and asked if I switched over. I told him yes and left. I called my new insurance carrier and let them know the situation, they fixed my records let Walgreens know and the next day I was able to get my medication.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's nice that's the only problem you ever had. Few of us have been so lucky.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox DAR... when I read your arguments against the public option, I get the sense that you're afraid the public option will alter your private health care for the worse. Am I correct in making that assumption? I understand fears like this, and it's possible that they have a little bit of merit. That being said... I would rather see my health care diminish in quality a bit if it means that all Americans will be able to get affordable health care. I'm willing to make that sacrifice, because it is the right and just and moral thing to do.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***My wife had intense pains and bleeding when she was pregnant with our first child. We drove to the nearest emergency room, and had no idea if it was covered by our insurance or not. My wife is sobbing, talking about how scared she is she's going to lose her baby, and the ER nurse said they couldn't help because our insurance didn't cover us there.*** This is unbelievable to me. Utterly unbelievable. It didn't used to be this way iirc, no? I can walk into any hospital or clinic in the whole country and receive low co-payment, high quality care. How could it be any worse, DAR? Doctors intentionally killing Grandma or something (since that's the only argument they've got, I imagine they don't have any real ones)?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Let's stop pretending like this is preferable to other countries, where they don't run into this with emergencies. You go to a hospital, they take care of you.*** Emergencies? Hell, here it doesn't even MATTER if it's an emergency or not. You show up, you get treated. Everywhere. The fact that EMERGENCIES are even an issue here sickens me.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Of course it's not perfect but it's rather presumptious to assume that the public option is going to be better<<< wow, I feel like a broken record here. DAR, how do you know it could be worse, or it might be better? Have you experienced social medicine? I have experienced 1 private system (in the US with many hospital trips for me as a disabled child, for my disabled mom - plus when she had breast candcer, and for my grandmother), and 3 socialised systems - the UK for the last 23 years, Germany (where they sewed my ear back on after an accident), and in France where I had acute Tonsilitus and Uvilitus. The UK and the US both had hiccups and good times, my experience in France and Germany were excellent (though both one offs). But I know my mother who spent 30+ years under medical care in the US and 23 years in the UK swears by the NHS, and not just a money thing. She claims overall her quality of care has been far better. So, why is socialised medicine a bad thing? The only answers I get from the GOPers are: 1. Where will America find the money (that is an easy one to solve, I do it all the time over here) 2. I don't want to support the poor (some have finally admitted this, and it makes my blood boil, but that is their selfish opinion) 3. They are concerned about government interfering in their lives (shame they did not feel so strongly about the patriot act) 4. They are concerned the pay scales will not encourage the "right calibre" of med students to become doctors (hmmm, do I want a doctor that wants to save lives or become rich? Not a difficult question for me to answer). And then there are those that think the US has the only medical breakthroughs. Well IVF and heart transplants are two significant breakthroughs developed by socialised medical countries. However I will conceed that pharmacological development is faster in the US, but hey, when every other commercial on TV seems to be for pills, and drugs are big business in the US, no surprise there. Shame Reagan's war on drugs did not include the pharmacies.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Some jobs are a calling; The Priesthood Teaching Social Work Medicine For some, Politics and Law Police force Military It really worries me when people say they are concerned that good quality students will not become doctors because they will not make $900,000 a year. Is this really the case? Newly qualified doctors can expect to make about $90,000 in the UK, with many going on to earn about $300,000 a year (about 1 in 10). Surely that is more than adequate? When you compare this to other highly skilled areas it is on par over here with Lawyers, Judges, and the Prime Minister. Surely no one deserves to earn $900,000 a year (though it would be nice).
Originally Posted By ecdc >>However I will conceed that pharmacological development is faster in the US, but hey, when every other commercial on TV seems to be for pills, and drugs are big business in the US, no surprise there.<< It's become a huge, huge problem in this country. Since pills are good for business, the number of Americans on medication has skyrocketed in the last decade. We're now seeing kindergardeners on anti-depressants. I'm not kidding. We have pills for toenail fungus and restless leg syndrome. The pharmaceutical community has invented new diseases just so they can treat them. It's awful. And innovation ain't cheap, either. Just ask an uninsured person about their medication. You'll find out they usually don't have any, because it's too expensive.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's one example of a recent, BS "disease" that absolutely infuriates me: Adult Attention Deficit Disorder. Why is it BS? Because the diagnosis is not based on chemical imbalance or some other physiological issue, but by an inability to function as effectively in the very specifically structured American culture. Here's the symptoms of AADHD: Procrastination Indecision, difficulty recalling and organizing details required for a task Poor time management, losing track of time Avoiding tasks or jobs that require sustained attention Difficulty initiating tasks Difficulty completing and following through on tasks Difficulty multitasking Difficulty shifting attention from one task to another In other words, if you can't be a mindless drone that functions well in the American education system or the American work environment, you have AADHD. You have got to be freaking kidding me! We just told a whole segment of the population that because they learn differently and work differently than is most effective for corporate America, that they have a "disorder." And guess what? A new study just came out that showed that almost all people who multi-task, are absolutely lousy at it. People do better focusing on one task at a time and moving on to the next task. It's just a fact. But since kids went to school and were bored, or didn't succeed as well as another kid, we invented a whole new class of disorder to explain away. God forbid we embrace the differences and actually facilitate a learning environment where kids with shorter attention spans could learn and function well. Nope, let's just slap a disorder on them. And what inevitably follows? Medication, medication, medication. Lest I seem insensitive, I had been diagnosed with AADHD myself some years ago. Had it been around when I was in grade school, I'm positive I would've been diagnosed ADHD - I had every single symptom. I was bored, I couldn't focus, I daydreamed away for hours at a time. My doctor gave me a prescription, which I promptly tossed in the trash. I learned to find things I was passionate about, and those things let me slow down and be more attentive. I've managed to make it work just fine, and I've accomplished some great things despite a completely bogus "disorder." It just infuriates me that we pigeon hole people and tell them they have a disorder because they happen to function a little differently. And all in the name of selling a cure they don't need. Dr. Terminus would be proud. /rant
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The only problem I ever had was going to Walgreens I went to pick up my Lipitor. I had such switched carriers. It costs me $35 for a 90 day supply. When I picked it up that time it was $350 for the supply. >>> So DAR, do you not see that this is a perfect example of one of the big problems with the American medical system? One component of the cost recovery model is that patients without insurance are charged extraordinary prices for goods and services, often 3x or 4x what they would cost in other countries. You can go to practically any first-world country with universal coverage for residents, and should you find yourself in a situation where you have to actually pay for care out of pocket (such as if you're a tourist and therefore aren't covered by the national insurance), the charges are but a fraction of what they would be in the US for equivalent care. This is but one of many things that needs to be fixed.
