[Vision2020] Health care

Tue Apr 22 21:24:32 PDT 2008

Saundra,

  You are right that middle class home owners are more likely to declare bankruptcy than the poor because they have property to protect, whereas poor people don't. But I think we all know that the poor have worse health care than others, as Mr. Gier's article pointed out, they are 25% more likely to die earlier.  Private funding for the poor is limited and they are not always knowledgeable about what is available to them.

  To make health care more affordable, I don't think forced government care is the way, or makes it cheaper for the public. 

  I would give health care providers two opinions. Either agree to a plan that limits charging a resident for health care to no more than 20% of their income, or will no longer be eligible for any tax breaks, funding, grants, or use of government property or government subsidized property, and not be able to receive payment for services rendered by any government assistance or government supported assistance programs. 

  In other words, hospitals and medical care facilities can either operate under the current system with no taxpayer support and completely under private funds, or it can agree to charge reasonable rates and get government support and larger numbers of patients. 

  I think this would allow Americans the options of private vs. public funded care without getting rid of private operating medical professionals.

  A socialist approach only shifts the burden of rising health costs from the user to the general population. I think the key to addressing these problems is to force the costs to be less, not agreeing to keep paying them no matter how out of hand the costs rise. 

  I would also make it a federal crime for any medical company not to accept for payment any insurance any veteran of the United States Military has to offer for necessary medical treatment. I don't know where these clinics and doctors get off turning down veterans medical treatment because they don't have private health insurance. They ought to be honored to serve these men and women, not turning them down because they don't have enough cash. Lent or waded $1000 bills in their pockets, doctors should be willing to serve these men and women.

  Finally, I would ban pharmaceutical companies from directly lobbying doctors and protect doctors and hospitals from excessive lawsuits. Hospitals and doctors should be required to fix their mistakes to the extent possible, and if they are incompetent, should be stripped of their practices if proved to be incompetent. But doctors and hospitals need to be able to do their jobs. 

  Best Regards,

  Donovan

  Saundra Lund <sslund_2007 at verizon.net> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}                Donovan wrote:
  “Health insurance companies enable doctors and health care providers to charge fees not otherwise affordable to 90% of the public, and putting the poor into medical bankruptcy.”

  The fact of the matter is that the majority of those forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills are middle-class home-owning college educated Americans with health insurance, not the poor.

  As completely pathetic and wholly inadequate as they are, there are “safety nets” for the poor that simply don’t exist for middle-class Americans with health insurance.  I am – and have been -- well-aware of the lunacy of different charges for those with health insurance vs those without, and it’s something I’ve been vocal about opposing for years.

  However, I’ve also been very well-aware of insurance companies steadily eroding benefits while premiums have skyrocketed for those with health insurance in recent years.  It is that erosion of benefits, routine denials of valid claims, inadequacy of provider “networks” (read:  paying premiums for care that’s not available – in essence, selling worthless products to major employers and individuals), and skyrocketing premiums that are responsible for the increase in bankruptcies due to medical expenses.  All you have to do is read the research over the past decade or so to know this.

  Other wealthy free-market industrialized societies have been able to affordably address the problem – why can’t we?  We agree, I think, that the answer is greed, but If those of us in the US who believe the problem is solvable don’t come together and demand meaningful and proven reform, we’ll continue on the same path we’ve been heading down that has gotten us to the unconscionable state of health care affairs in America.  I believe it is possible – what about you?

  I’ve been calling for Universal Health Care in America for at least two decades (and being labeled a commie, a socialist, and too many other pejoratives to list) – what are you advocating?  If you’ve done your homework, you know as well as I the impossible financial ramifications of allowing folks to “opt out” of health care coverage unless we go to a single-payer system:  we-the-taxpayers wind up footing the bill for catastrophic costs.  Again, other industrialized countries have done a much better job of addressing health care coverage for all – why can’t we?!?!

  So, Donovan – what’s your solution?  Do we continue down the same path that’s gotten us here, or do we do something different?  If we do something different, what do you envision?  I’m asking because I want to know your thoughts.  I have mine, but I’m absolutely open to anything you can show me that will work to get us out of the deplorable situation we find ourselves in.

  Saundra Lund
  Moscow, ID

  The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
  ~ Edmund Burke

  ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the author.*****

    From: Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:57 PM
To: Saundra Lund; 'Ralph Nielsen'; 'Vision 2020'
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Health care

    Saundra,

    What exactly did I say that contradicts what you said below? The reason people are going broke is because medical costs are too high, due to greed. It is not because people are dying at a higher rate than they were 30 years. In fact, people are living longer.

    Poorer people are charged more for medical care than those with heath insurance, that is fact, don't believe me, call your insurance company, or any insurance company, and they will tell confirm what I say.

    Best Regards,

    Donovan

    I

Saundra Lund <sslund_2007 at verizon.net> wrote:

      Actually, Donovan, I think you are mistaken.  While this article is a couple of years old, the stat breakdown still hold according to the ABI:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/

    Note:

    “Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released Wednesday. . . Most of those seeking court protection from creditors had health insurance, with more than three-quarters reporting they had coverage at the start of the illness that triggered bankruptcy. . . Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005. . . The findings indicate medical-related bankruptcies hit middle-class families hard — 56 percent of the filers owned a home, and the same number had attended college.  “Families with coverage faced
 unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items like physical therapy, psychiatric care and prescription drugs,” Himmelstein said.””

    The state of health care in this country is a national disgrace, but it really gets tiresome, Donovan, for you to continually fail to recognize that the middle-class is being hit very hard, harder than the poor by all factual reports, with respect to bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

    Furthermore, those parents forced into relinquishing parental rights to ensure that their children have access to appropriate medical care for chronic conditions are overwhelmingly middle-class families with health insurance.  This particular horror is something the poor are actually spared.

    Another instance is the cost of medications.  For those without health insurance, there are many patient assistance programs available.  I know two people taking identical medications:  one gets the medications free through patient assistance programs, and the other with health insurance will pay in excess of $300 per month after meeting a $1500 deductible.  Their annual incomes are about $1100 apart.

    If you have more current factual information, I’m all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).

    You are, however, correct, IMHO, that the greed possible in an unfettered free market is responsible for our US unconscionable health care costs.

    Saundra Lund

    Moscow, ID

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

    ~ Edmund Burke

    ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the author.*****

      From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:53 PM
To: Ralph Nielsen; Vision 2020
Cc: Donovan Arnold
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Health care

      Ralph,

      The reason that charity doesn't pay for medical care of the poor is because we charge outrageous rates for medical care.

      No, my band-aid example is grounded in reality, although exaggerated to make a point. Hospitals overcharge the uninsured, that is a fact. The reason they do this is because they know that they will only recover a certain percentage of the actual cost of providing them care. This strategy obviously hurts the poor more than those that are wealthier and can afford health insurance.

      Health insurance companies enable doctors and health care providers to charge fees not otherwise affordable to 90% of the public, and putting the poor into medical bankruptcy. 

      You cannot apply the Canadian system of health care to that of the United States. It would not work. Greed is the simple reason for our health care system being unaffordable to the average citizen, it is that simple. 

      Best Regards,

      Donovan

Ralph Nielsen <nielsen at uidaho.edu> wrote:

Dear Donovan,

I don't know where you get these ideas, but they are not grounded on 
reality. If you imagine that charity will pay for the poor, why are 
over 40 million Americans without health care insurance of any kind? 
And why are millions more bankrupted by doctor and hospital bills 
that their insurance companies refuse to pay? I think your band-aid 
example is absurd.

For some first-hand information on how universal medicare works in 
the Province of British Columbia, please read the first two articles 
on this web site. They are written by an American citizen who lives 
in BC and is familiar with both systems. And please note, Donovan, 
the Canadian system does not benefit the rich while hurting the poor, 
as you claim below. Please get your facts first.

Ralph

Ralph,

Universal Health Care, and Universal Health Coverage are two 
totally different things. Forcing people to buy health insurance 
doesn't cure anybody, it just makes doctors and insurance companies 
even wealthier than they are.

I am 100% against forced health insurance purchasing, because it 
will not help the poor and will just be another tax benefiting the 
rich while hurting the poor.

The problem is not how can we pay for a $60 band-aid, but rather, 
why we cannot reduce the cost of the band-aid to 60 cents, or even 
$6.00. If you bring down the cost of the band-aid, the middle class 
can afford health insurance and charity can afford to cover the poor.

Best Regards,

Donovan

Ralph Nielsen wrote:
I thought it was a very informative program in that it covered a
variety of systems for universal coverage. Unfortunately, most
Americans seem to have been indoctrinated with the idea the 
universal
health insurance is "socialized medicine," and therefore to be
avoided like poison A couple of months ago a repairman at my house
used that term with an air of dislike. So I asked hem what he meant
by that term. He replied that it means that all doctors will be
working for the government.

So I told him about my Canadian brother, who is a self-made
millionaire, and lives in the Okanagan Valley, just north of the
Washington border. About a year ago he had a hip replacement. He 
had
to wait less than a month because he was willing to go to a younger
doctor instead of an older, more popular one. Most Canadian doctors
do not work for the government, they work for themselves. Only the
insurance is paid by the government, like our Medicare, and ALL
residents are covered, not just the rich, as down here. This is 
paid
for by income taxes, which, of course, are based on ability to pay,
and everybody is covered, regardless of income.

Last month there was a provincial election in Alberta, where the
Conservative Party has been in power for 37 years. In February they
called for a provincial election on March 3. I listened on my
internet radio to a 2-hour debate between the party leaders:
Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic (like the British Labour
Party), and a small new party called the Alberta Wild Rose Party,
which sounded like dogmatic libertarians. There were frequent
questions about problems with health care but no one, not even the
libertarian, proposed that their "socialized" medicine be scrapped
and Alberta return to the old American-style system they had 
before.
In fact, it was the Conservatives who had set it up in the first 
place!

Later, on March 3, the Conservatives were not only returned to 
power;
they gained 11 new seats! Wouldn't it be nice if our conservatives
learned something from the Province of Alberta?

Ralph Nielsen

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------

    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

---------------------------------

  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080422/e539681a/attachment-0001.html 