AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Walter Hinteler,

But that is there. And this is here. Even in the 'good old days', many of the better insurance policies did pay for an annual physical just so folks would be more likely to get one. The bare bones policies didn't, but the cost of an annual check up was affordable for most folks anyway. At any rate, the system got it done for most without the government telling people what they could or could not do re management of their healthcare.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Other private companies have that right Walter; of course they have to go to court to do so.

Same here, not only companies but every person has that right.

It sounded different for me - since if everyone has that right (via legal system) why mention it?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Apparently health insurance companies do not have that right.

That was new information to me too.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Apparently health insurance companies do not have that right.

That was new information to me too.

Health insurance companies get paid up front (or you're not covered), so I don't know why they would need such a thing.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But that is there. And this is here.

Well, I don't mind if you pay.I don'n't have that money.

But thanks for responding - did you miss this question?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If we would return to a true healthcare insurance system, I think we would see the costs for healthcare policies reduced significantly.

When did you (= the USA) have a 'true healthcare insurance' system?

What is a 'true healthcare insurance system'?

Who defines 'true healthcare'?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
(2) The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.

Sure, just try to get that pre-existing condition covered.

When someone posts that as "Reality" you have to wonder if they have ever tried to get insurance with a pre-existing condition.

Additionally, the allegation that a large percentage of the uninsured can afford health insurance coverage fails to consider the practical ramifications for families. In many localities, the monthly cost of a health insurance policy costs just as much or more than the monthly cost of a house payment or rent. If your paycheck is insufficient to have both health insurance and a roof over your family's head, which necessity do you choose?

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

sorry, hospitals I meant.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Apparently health insurance companies do not have that right.

That was new information to me too.

Well the health insurance companies get paid, but I don't know that the healthcare providers don't necessarily have that 'right', as there are horror stories of people losing everything over healthcare costs. But until the government got involved, most healthcare providers were able to work it out with most folks. And we know one of our more serious problems is that emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away indigent patients no matter how much of a non emergency they might have. In the 'olden days' such folks were taken care of mostly by benevolent doctors or charity clinics.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Apparently health insurance companies do not have that right.

That was new information to me too.

Well the health insurance companies get paid, but I don't know that the healthcare providers don't necessarily have that 'right', as there are horror stories of people losing everything over healthcare costs. But until the government got involved, most healthcare providers were able to work it out with most folks. And we know one of our more serious problems is that emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away indigent patients no matter how much of a non emergency they might have. In the 'olden days' such folks were taken care of mostly by benevolent doctors or charity clinics.

Seems, I don't understand this.

You wrote:

5. Allow healthcare providers to attach liens to property or assets of patients who cannot pay for their healthcare.

So, if someone can't pay, there no legal way for healthcare provider to get the money.
And you suggest that they should have a right like it is otherwise done within the legal system (= via courts)?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Do you have any data that supports the percentage of Americans who get annual medical checkups, fox? You state that "the system got it done for most without the government..." without anything behind it. You also state that the cost of an annual check up is affordable for most. Care to back that up with data?

Let me give you a head start on the first one. Approx 20% of Americans get annual physical exams. Got any ideas on why the other 80% of Americans don't get annual exams? Do you suppose it might have something to do with being prohibitively expensive?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Sarah Palin's book: Going Rogue: The endearing story of a half-witted American woman, the female counterpart of the dumbest man on the planet (Glenn Beck), aspiring to write an autobiography

Everytime you libel Sarah Palin here, you portray yourself to be the stupidous contributor to this thread. You are a WREDA (i.e., Wealth REDistributor Activist) that appears terrified that Sarah Palin may in fact run against Barack Obam, a WREDAP (i.e., Wealth REDistributor Activist Practitioner), in 2012, and make Barak Obama clearly reveal himself to be the fool he is.

I'm not terrified, ican. I really, really, really, really want Sarah Palin to be selected by the GOP to run against Obama.

In your cut and paste, you failed to include the part of my statement where I suggested that quitter, all-mouth-no-action, Sarah Palin, is merely teasing the rightwing nuts who are climaxing in their pants over her into believing that she might run for president. She has proven, however, that she is not interested in actually serving the public.

Like it or not, your beloved Sarah is more interested in capitalizing on her "fame" (notoriety as the ignoramus that has stolen the hearts of the screaming whacko rightwing numbnuts) to make herself rich and famous. She is a narcissist who basks in the adoration of idiots, but she is wholly incompetent and she knows it. That's why she shields herself from any probing questions that, if she attempted to answer, would expose her to be the dunce that she is.

But don't let my opinion of your idol sway you, ican. Make Sarah Palin the head of your MAC movement. Us evil libruls would love to see that happen far more than you realize. Twisted Evil

1 Reply

@JPB,

We're going through open-enrollment at my work right now.

Their documentation says that a wellness visit or checkup costs $180.

I'm sure that's prohibitively expensive for many.

I'll say though that I do not regularly do annual checkups either, and it only costs me $20, which (for me) is almost an afterthought. However, I'm only in my late 20's and I feel great. If I were older or felt bad, I'm sure I'd be going more often.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Do you have any data that supports the percentage of Americans who get annual medical checkups, fox? You state that "the system got it done for most without the government..." without anything behind it. You also state that the cost of an annual check up is affordable for most. Care to back that up with data?

Let me give you a head start on the first one. Approx 20% of Americans get annual physical exams. Got any ideas on why the other 80% of Americans don't get annual exams? Do you suppose it might have something to do with being prohibitively expensive?

Nope. Medicare went into effect in I think 1965 and the system has been steadily going to hell ever since. I have absolutely no data from that era, but I was working for a hospital when all that happened and I and hubby and the kids were utilizing the system then as was everybody we knew. I don't remember what the cost of the annual checkup was, but most of us were getting them and none of us had much money.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

And on this note....my choices for healthcare providers has been dropped to ONE. I have ONE choice, which really is NO choice.

There is a high-deductable plan though that I'll probably sign up for.

I'm single, and my cost for healthcare this year will be $100/month plus 15% of my medical expenses up to $3000 if I do a PPO.

If I do the HDP, my cost is $30/month and I pay everything up to $1200 cap for the year.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

What I SAID though is that I don't believe that the tort system has a direct impact on health care RESULTS.

What makes you think that?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

We're going through open-enrollment at my work right now.

Their documentation says that a wellness visit or checkup costs $180.

I'm sure that's prohibitively expensive for many.

I'll say though that I do not regularly do annual checkups either, and it only costs me $20, which (for me) is almost an afterthought. However, I'm only in my late 20's and I feel great. If I were older or felt bad, I'm sure I'd be going more often.

Do you really think $180 would be prohibitively expensive for many of your colleagues these days? Do you think many of your colleagues would not spend that much on a weekend away or to repair their car or to replace the television set in the bedroom?

But don't think those of us who are older with aches and pains, etc. are any more likely to go to the doctor. I avoid them like the plague unless I absolutely have to go and it only costs me $10.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Ordering redundant or tests that normally would not be indicated just to reduce the remote chance that something unrelated are not likely to reduce doctor mistakes.

How do you know that?

I know that from common sense and I know that from working in hospitals for years.

Oh. For a minute there I thought you were a doctor.

Foxfyre wrote:

Then the treatment for strep wouldn't work would it? And I would still have the sore throat. Then I would expect the doctor to do the additional NECESSARY tests to determine that. Remember, he got it right the first try, and I didn't need any other tests.

Given that cancer is often an aggressive disease, the second test might be too late. But as long as you're satisfied with a heart-felt "oops" from your doctor, I guess that's all right.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well of course if you didn't read the links provided, you could believe that. If you did read the links provided, and you were intellectually honest, you would acknowledge that at least some tort reform has resulted in a number of demonstrable benefits to both medical providers and their patients.

All I saw was some post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, without any solid evidence that tort "reform" actually led to any health care savings to the consumer. But then that really doesn't interest me very much. I still haven't heard anyone from the pro-"reform" side argue that tort "reform" has any intrinsic merit aside from its supposed cost-saving benefits. Would you like to take a crack at that?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

And on this note....my choices for healthcare providers has been dropped to ONE. I have ONE choice, which really is NO choice.

There is a high-deductable plan though that I'll probably sign up for.

I'm single, and my cost for healthcare this year will be $100/month plus 15% of my medical expenses up to $3000 if I do a PPO.

If I do the HDP, my cost is $30/month and I pay everything up to $1200 cap for the year.

Considering how I think the currently proposed government healthcare plan would play out, I don't think your options would increase any and would likely be even more limited.

I think taking the government out of the equation as much as possible, however, and enacting some kind of reform package as Ican, I, and some others, along with various national conservative figures, have been kicking around would greatly expand choices, options, and accessibility of healthcare while bringing down the costs.

I wish our fearless leaders were not determined that the people will have no say in this. The last I heard, all the GOP amendments to ensure that we would have 72 hours to read and contemplate the legislation have been rejected. Most likely we will have little opportunity to see it before the vote.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

All I saw was some post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, without any solid evidence that tort "reform" actually led to any health care savings to the consumer. But then that really doesn't interest me very much. I still haven't heard anyone from the pro-"reform" side argue that tort "reform" has any intrinsic merit aside from its supposed cost-saving benefits. Would you like to take a crack at that?

I've seen O'Bill forward those arguments in the Health care thread, and he actually has a little structure and logic to them. I don't agree with his position, but he's at least more rational then this bunch, on this topic.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Considering how I think the currently proposed government healthcare plan would play out, I don't think your options would increase any and would likely be even more limited.

What? How is that possible, that he would have less than one choice of providers to work with, under the new plan? Doesn't make much sense.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know