Polls - NEW

Posted on: Sun, Apr 20 2008 8:04 AM

Posted by: TriDog Posts: 1,897

Nightengale:

The problem with tying health insurance to full-time work is that it leaves out those who cannot work full-time at a large enough place of business to provide health insurance.  Recently I heard a comment that tying health insurance to work made about as much sense as tying car insurance to work.  There is really no connection between the two.

 

I think that a national plan that covers everybody, with the option to pay more for a private additional plan, is probably the best way to go.  But at this point I'll take anything that will help me take better care of the nations underserved (and often disabled) children.

Nightengale, 

I won't disagree that something has to be done to help those that can't work.  But, do you really think we should provide health care to those that are able and won't work?  I grew up in the worked in the inner city neighborhoods of Boston.  I now take in foster kids. Living on public assistance has a become a multi-generational lifestyle of choice.  I could go on and on with stories that some of the teens and pre-teens have told us about what they can get if they have babies.  Yikes!  It's scary.  But the've learned this from their parents.  We had one teenager that was already sexually active. She wanted to have a baby so that she could qualify for either her own apartment or Section 8 housing assistance. When I asked her who was going to pay the medical bills?  She said her Mom told her just always go to the ER and tell them you have no insurance. The laws say they have to treat you.  At 14 she was very wise to how to cheat the system.  But perhaps this is a different thread topic. 

As for tying health insurance with employment. Well, you can thank the unions for this mess.  Unions got it as a benefit of employment back in the 30's (I think it was the 30s).  Employers started looking at it as part of salary.  In turn, salaries started to grow slower and slower.  If I was an employer an had to pay your insurance too, I'd pay you less.  It only makes sense.   If health insurance were sold on the open market only, like car insurance, the cost would be reasonable. Just like car insurance, you could shop around and purchase the plan that best fits you.

Personally, my wife and I are fully covered by my insurance at $100. a month and a $15. co-pay.  For a PPO it's pretty sweet deal.  My plan is even better then what she can get and she's an ER and hospice nurse!   The early drafts of Mrs. Bill Clinton's plan, back in the 90's, had the government putting everyone one on a National Health Care plan.  EVERYONE would have equal care. I don't want to go onto some sort of public assistance for my health care.  Right now I get excellant care from a private physician and want to keep it.  IS it fair the I have better coverage then others?  YES!  It's fair.  I work for it and I pay for it.  So I deserve it better coverage. 

Again, we do need some kind of program to assist those that really cannot work and get their own.  But I really don't want the goovernment to have anything to do with my health care.  When was the last time you saw a government program do anything fast and correctly?  Do you want health care from the lowest bidder?

Posted on: Sun, Apr 20 2008 9:37 AM

Posted by: Nightengale Posts: 686

Right now I feel that Medicaid is taking better care of some of my patients than those with private insurance.  For allergy and asthma managment, medicaid covers whole classes of medications that some insurance plans do not.  Medications that might keep a kid out of the ER.   Last week we had to send a patient to the emergency room for a CT scan because his insurance would only cover it if it were an emergency.  How does that make any sense in terms of dollars saved?  If everyone had insurance, there would be much less using the ER for visits for the common cold or pregnancy tests which would save money also.  And people would get health care from a provider who knows them, which improves care immensely.  The SCHIP program which covers many of my patietns is not perfect and it is not fast but it does do things more or less correctly.  With proper funding it could be a lot better.  Our current president refused to sign the reauthorization of  funding for this bill and I worry about the children.  As far as adults who can work and don't - I'd rather give them health care and then deny any other sort of public assistance.  Decent health care should be a right.  In my ideal world people with more money could then pay more for an additional plan, but I'd rather cover everyone basically than continue the feudal system we have now.

As far as salaries growing smaller due to health insurance, I used to joke that I would take half salary if it meant that all my medical needs were covered 100%.  Without insurance diabetes costs hundreds of dollars a month, nearly as much as my rent and more than my power bill and car insurance combined.   Knowing my health care was completely taken care of for life even if I lost my job would give me such piece of mind I would gladly take a lower salary.   But I don't think insurance should be tied to employment at all.  My current insurance is not paid for by the state but it is a plan for state employees so is run by the government, and is far far better coverage than Aetna used to give me.  Of course I also get better health care from a university hospital than I got in the past from private practice, so I am fortunate there.  Yes it's the same university hospital which takes 40% medicaid and a fair number of uninsured.  I am proud to treat so many patients on SCHIP and Medicaid.

Posted on: Sun, Apr 20 2008 10:07 AM

Posted by: TriDog Posts: 1,897

I disagree with you about the present system being a feudal system.  In a feudal sytem there is n opportunity for betterment and improving one's lot in life.  This is a nation built on opprotunity. 

I'm glad that you can even consider living on half salary if you got 100% medical coverage.  Even if I got 100% coverage, I would have to sell my house inside of 6 months if I went to half salary.  You must be doing pretty good.  Good for you.   Also, do you know what is going to happen to our income taxes if we go to a national health care system?  Some estamates believe that over a third of the federal budget will be required to pay for it.  Am I suppose to start giving up parts of my lifestyle, that I've worked hard for, to pay higher taxes to provide everyone with health care. 

Health care as a basic right?  To use that thougth process, so is food. Perhaps food should be provided free too?  This type of system was tried and it failed.  It's called Communism.  Again, I am all for a reasonalbe system to provide for those that cannot work and provide from themselves.  But not for all.

Posted on: Sun, Apr 20 2008 1:08 PM

Posted by: Lieslmcq Posts: 2,303

TriDog:

Health care as a basic right?  To use that thougth process, so is food. Perhaps food should be provided free too?  This type of system was tried and it failed.  It's called Communism.  Again, I am all for a reasonalbe system to provide for those that cannot work and provide from themselves.  But not for all.

I agree with you there. The problem though is, how do you decide who can work?  There also needs to be some accountability in the insurance business. I don't see it, now.

On a separate note: anyone heard about Tier 4 drugs? Ya know, I'm going to start a new thread on that one.