IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

But a good number of chronic diseases -- kidney failure, some forms of epilepsy, and others -- are so expensive they exceed even the budget of middle class families, who aren't covered by Medicaid.

Thomas wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

basic medical care is provided via EDs. if someone is in acute medical distress, he or she can get free care at any emergency department. and the government does provide coverage for those who can't afford it.

The government provides coverage for poor people. But a good number of chronic diseases -- kidney failure, some forms of epilepsy, and others -- are so expensive they exceed even the budget of middle class families, who aren't covered by Medicaid.

yes, that's true. but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. the government can't be responsible for every need of every person.

suppose i had a child with a condition that required medical care far surpassing my income - then what? is the government supposed to cover all of that for me, even if i do earn enough to pay for basic health care ?

Health insurers make money out of screwing over their clients to the maximum amount they will deal with.

Do you get it, Hokie?

The insurers rely upon not helping people to stay profitable. Period.

Cycloptichorn

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

basic medical care is provided via EDs. if someone is in acute medical distress, he or she can get free care at any emergency department. and the government does provide coverage for those who can't afford it.

The government provides coverage for poor people. But a good number of chronic diseases -- kidney failure, some forms of epilepsy, and others -- are so expensive they exceed even the budget of middle class families, who aren't covered by Medicaid.

yes, that's true. but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. the government can't be responsible for every need of every person.

suppose i had a child with a condition that required medical care far surpassing my income - then what? is the government supposed to cover all of that for me, even if i do earn enough to pay for basic health care ?

Better to just let the kid suffer to an excruciating death. Right?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Health insurers make money out of screwing over their clients to the maximum amount they will deal with.

Do you get it, Hokie?

The insurers rely upon not helping people to stay profitable. Period.

Cycloptichorn

while you may not like it... the company may pull policies if they choose. it is a business and they exist to make money. when any company has an asset that causes them to lose money, they will release it. it is the same in this case.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Health insurers make money out of screwing over their clients to the maximum amount they will deal with.

Do you get it, Hokie?

The insurers rely upon not helping people to stay profitable. Period.

Cycloptichorn

while you may not like it... the company may pull policies if they choose. it is a business and they exist to make money. when any company has an asset that causes them to lose money, they will release it. it is the same in this case.

'cept that they are violating both the terms of their actual contract and the moral contract they made with the person being insured. Doesn't that matter to you at all?

Cycloptichorn

suppose i had a child with a condition that required medical care far surpassing my income - then what? is the government supposed to cover all of that for me, even if i do earn enough to pay for basic health care ?

while you may not like it... the company may pull policies if they choose.

cyclo... i realize this may be hard for you... but there are not enough resources to make everyone's life perfect. no, i don't think it's "better to let the child suffer" - but i am realistic enough to know that we cannot support all of the medical needs of all of the people. i don't know why it's so hard to understand.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

suppose i had a child with a condition that required medical care far surpassing my income - then what? is the government supposed to cover all of that for me, even if i do earn enough to pay for basic health care ?

Why not? It is an empirical fact that universal health care can take care of all of that for you, without prohibitively bad consequences for the other policy holders. France and England are doing it in a single-payer, "Medicare for all" kind of framework. Germany is doing it through private suppliers in a heavily regulated market. But however you implement it, the point is it's possible. So the question isn't "why cover sick people with expensive illnesses"? The question is "why not?"

USAHokie80 wrote:

while you may not like it... the company may pull policies if they choose.

Under current law it may. But if the law is changed to make the practice illegal, as we did in Germany long ago, the company may not. The question then becomes, should America change its health insurance laws or not?

USAHokie80 wrote:

cyclo... i realize this may be hard for you... but there are not enough resources to make everyone's life perfect. no, i don't think it's "better to let the child suffer" - but i am realistic enough to know that we cannot support all of the medical needs of all of the people. i don't know why it's so hard to understand.

To repeat: No, you are not being realistic. The fact is that France, Germany, and Britain do provide much broader coverage than America, and provide it to everyone, including those who can't afford it. We know for a fact that what Cycloptichorn wants is possible. Of course, you can still support a legal regime in which companies can cancel the policies of cancer patients in the middle of their therapy. You are well within your rights to support that. But it's not out of necessity that you do it. It's your personal choice, and you have to defend it on that basis.

so... wait a minute... change the laws? you want to change the law so that a private insurance corporation cannot cancel a policy with on-going treatment? i assume you would disallow them to increase rates as well?

The ability of another country to do whatever does not prove it will work in America. Germany and France are the size of a single STATE here... there are MANY MANY more people to care for here.

Oh, and let's not forget all of the illegal immigrants.

Then there is the matter of the doctors. In your part of the world, many of them work for the government.

Not here in Germany they don't. You can implement, and we have implemented, universal health care by regulating the private market, and having the government pay the premiums for the jobless, the disabled, and other people unable to pay

And where does the govt get that money?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

so... wait a minute... change the laws? you want to change the law so that a private insurance corporation cannot cancel a policy with on-going treatment? i assume you would disallow them to increase rates as well?

On an on-going client, yes!

Why not?

You may not be a heartless bastard, but you don't seem to have an ounce of sympathy whatsoever for people who actually think that corporations should be forced to act in good faith.

Cycloptichorn

USAFHokie80
If the company were selling shoe laces or blouses whether it was acting in good faith or not would not be critical. However when it is dealing with peoples lives. IMO it damn sure must act in good faith.

au1929 wrote:

USAFHokie80
If the company were selling shoe laces or blouses whether it was acting in good faith or not would not be critical. However when it is dealing with peoples lives. IMO it damn sure must act in good faith.

And what exactly do you consider "good faith" ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

USAFHokie80
If the company were selling shoe laces or blouses whether it was acting in good faith or not would not be critical. However when it is dealing with peoples lives. IMO it damn sure must act in good faith.

And what exactly do you consider "good faith" ?

Not canceling people's insurance in the middle of treatment!!!

If the company has to lose money on a client, so be it. You don't seem to understand that the insurance companies are placing bets. They usually win big on the bets, as most people pay for health insurance and rarely use it. Every now and then they lose big, and according to you, they should be able to just quit the game when that happens. No way is that fair or moral in any fashion.

Cycloptichorn