55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:05 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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.


Well, I go twice per year to the dentist for check-up, twice per year to the urologist, once per year to the ophthalmologist, dermatologist and to my family doctor (internist) for check-ups, every second year additionally to my family doctor for all the various cancer test etc - it would be too expensive here. For most.
(Those who are privately insured get the chance to more tests, though.)
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.

That's setting the bar pretty low.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:09 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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.


Well, I go twice per year to the dentist for check-up, twice per year to the urologist, once per year to the ophthalmologist, dermatologist and to my family doctor (internist) for check-ups, every second year additionally to my family doctor for all the various cancer test etc - it would be too expensive here. For most.
(Those who are privately insured get the chance to more tests, though.)


Hubby, a cancer survivor, has to have periodic cancer tests too, and yes, these would be prohibitively expensive if we had to pay for all of them out of pocket. But I am not talking about that.

I am talking about paying for routine healthcare out of pocket in order to be able to afford private health insurance that would cover what we can't afford out of pocket. And perhaps even you, Walter, would be able to pay for much more out of pocket if your taxes that you prepay your healthcare with were much lower.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I am talking about paying for routine healthcare out of pocket in order to be able to afford private health insurance that would cover what we can't afford out of pocket.


I was talking about routine healthcare, too. That's what insurers want us to do (and public health authorities).
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Whatever floats your boat. I prefer to have charge of my own body and I feel pefectly competent to choose what is right for me and trust my doctor to advise me of what is right for me regardless of what the government and insurance companies think I should want for me.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:15 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
But I want to ask you, Foxfyre, again:

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

What is a 'true healthcare insurance system'?

Who defines 'true healthcare'?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:16 pm
@Foxfyre,
Correct. Therefore I go to those routine examinations ... especially, since I'm not pefectly competent to choose what is right for me, IM neither a dentist, nor a ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter if you don't understand what I've said so far, you won't understand if I say it again. Please understand that I am having a very good day, I am happy, and I am looking forward to enjoying the rest of it. I do not want to get embroiled in a ridiculous hair-splitting over a term or word conundrum with anybody today.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:46 pm
@joefromchicago,
[chuckle]
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:49 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

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.


My colleagues? No. I'm in middle-managment at a large financial company. The average pay at my level is $60-80k. They (most) would not think this is too expensive.

But I know that not a single member of my immediate family (who average less than 30k in annual salary) would be able to easily afford a $180 payment. They also do not go on vacations or weekend getaways, and even replacing a tire on their car is a serious expense. There are millions of Americans in that same situation.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 04:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.


Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. I have one service provider to choose from and only 2 health care plans. I suppose I could only have 1 healthcare plan, but that still doesn't change the service provider "choices" I'm limited to.

Which of course means that there is NO competition as it relates to MY healthcare providers.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:47 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.


Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. I have one service provider to choose from and only 2 health care plans. I suppose I could only have 1 healthcare plan, but that still doesn't change the service provider "choices" I'm limited to.

Which of course means that there is NO competition as it relates to MY healthcare providers.


But, if the system was changed so that you owned the policy instead of your employer and insurors could compete across state lines, voila! You could have dozens or hundreds of affordable plans to choose from.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well yeah, if things were completely different than they are today, why, everything would be roses for everyone!

I could just as easily point out that we all could participate in single-payer health care and have our choice of doctors, services, whatever. That would actually be cheaper and far preferable to your proposed system.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
6. So as not to create unacceptable hardship for millions of Americans, gradually begin phasing out Medicare and Medicaid at the Federal level to eliminate the multi-tiered payment schedules that force an unacceptable burden on non-government paid patients.


Let me guess... this is a good idea once you no longer need it, right?
Foxfyre
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:28 pm
@JPB,
I'm really sorry for whatever I did to you to merit such contempt JPB, and I do apologize for whatever it was.

I am also sorry that you hold in contempt those of us who have been forced into a system the government decreed. Had the government not established a Medicare system, then I would no longer be such a terrible burden to you and perhaps not such a thorn in your side. Believe me, if we could have afforded some other plan, we would have much preferred a more portable and less restrictive plan. Had the government not gotten involved in the first place, I believe that would have been possible.

The system is broken as it is and it is not sustainable for those of you who are still yet to sign on. Or perhaps you are independently wealthy and therefore are in a position to really despise those of us who are not.

Meanwhile, I beg you to permit me to exist in peace as I explore with others ideas to fix a broken system without completely socializing it? For myself I don't care. I have not utilized Medicare for a single thing since I signed up. But I have a husband who isn't out of the woods re his cancer yet, and children who are still years away and a granddaughter and many neices and nephews and great neices and nephews who are going to need healthcare.

Am I such a terrible person that I think there are better ways to go to find remedies for the problems than what the President is proposing?
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:35 pm
@maporsche,
Thank you, map. You see, foxy thinks that folks who don't have insurance are simply irresponsible or otherwise too busy having fun to spend money on health insurance.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
You're welcomed and encouraged to put me on ignore, fox.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I am also sorry that you hold in contempt those of us who have been forced into a system the government decreed.


This must be that authoritative government that Foxfyre holds in contempt. She fails to understand that the "government" didn't decree anything. It was our elected lawmakers--the representatives of the people--who enacted a law that created the program that has benefitted many millions of people for more than 40 years.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
@Debra Law,
That's because Foxie thinks her views supersedes our government enacted laws.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  6  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
You aren't "forced" into anything, fox. You choose to accept public health care because you're eligible. But you would deny the opportunity for public health care to those who are working, having Medicare deductions withheld to pay for your medical needs but don't have insurance themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.34 seconds on 12/04/2024 at 01:37:01