Petey:

well perhaps that was too subtle:

Nothing

Re politics, please lets tread carefully here. This is a Cancer board and while griping over funding and govermental waste are understandeable, I do not think that this is the right place to advocate shooting or bombing people.

M

Nellie, well said and I AGREE with all that you have said. Anyone, Republican or Democrat, should agree with you on this.

Markus

You are correct on both counts. I agree.

Sometimes we get caught up in our "friendly" disagreements.

Markus solved the riddle. Answer: "NOTHING"

If you can show that you possess less than $2,000.00 in cash and assets (not including 1 house & 1 car) "you

Does anyone really think that U.S. Govt. provided healthcare is the answer, the same govt. that operates Social Security? Look now at how so many truly disabled folks have to fight tooth and nail just to receive SSDI. I have seen battles of folks trying to get SSDI as bad if not worse than trying to get a private insurance company to cover issues.

Our politicians can't even (should read won't) control our borders for fear of losing votes. Votes and continued power is the only thing that interests them and the same goal would foremost in their minds while formulating a healthcare plan.

Government, both federal and local, are one of the reasons for so many problems and costs with private healthcare. To give one simple example, in GA as well as in many other states, the state insurance commission (may have different name in other states) dictates to insurance carriers what they can and cannot offer in the way of coverages. Individual consumers cannot pick and choose the coverages they wish to pay for to where they can essentially customize their coverage plan. This would have a major effect on the cost of coverage with the consumer having the freedom of picking and choosing. For instance, why should a man or woman 60 years old be forced to buy health insurance that provides for maternity benefits? Why should a devout non-drinker or drug user be forced to pay an insurance premium that includes coverage for substance abuse treatment? Such examples go on and on but this is just one area that could be looked at. You may have wondered the same thing as to why insurance companies can't sell something closer to what you want as an individual. The answer is that such issues are dictated by state government.

The train wreck known as healthcare is a mess but who can really straighten it out who won't be addressing their own agenda in the process?

Bill D.

Bill, I and everyone in my company are "forced to" buy insurance that provides maternity benefits and coverage for substance abuse treatment. As I am "forced to" pay for the cost of public education though I do not have any children. And I don't mind because other people are "forced to" pay for insurance that covers cancer care, a benefit that I have used and they never will.

I also don't mind because things like maternity care, education for all, and treatment for people with substance abuse problems, cost taxpayers MUCH less in the long run than the costs of care for infants born with lifelong birth defects, people chronically unemployed due to no job skills, and years in jail for a substance abuser. You are spouting a party line that just makes no SENSE when it is examined at all closely. It's a short t4emr view that benefits just one grop of people-stockholders in insurance companies.

Nelie

Nelie

I have no clue what you are speaking of by saying that I am "spouting a party line". The mess that our healthcare system is in is a bipartisan problem regardless of any "party" preference. I was simply giving one example of how individual healthcare coverage could be tailored for one's specific anticipated need. If you think that government is the answer for our healthcare needs then so be it. Also, you cannot compare the funding of public education with private healthcare coverage. Public (government) education is funded by tax monies collected where the payors have no choice in the matter but to pay. Private health insurance is an option for a consumer to purchase or not to purchase and as such, there is nothing offensive about the consumer being able to buy the coverage desired. We are offered coverage and limits options for auto, homeowners, life, and other forms of insurance made available to us as consumers.

My intent was not to turn this into some form of political argument as that is not the purpose of this site.

Bill D.

I have no objection to a basic level of coverage available to all and then also the option of paying for private care--as exists in the UK. But the whole purpose of health coverage should be you get covered for what you need. If you give people too many "options" of what is insured, they will fail to insure themselves for things they end up needing and that doesn't help anyone.

In my opinion we should have no choice but to pay for health insurance as we are able (and this is regardless of whether you think a private or state run system is best). It shouldn't be an option. People who can afford to pay if they budget but don't pay because they think they won't get sick, and then do, end up costing everyone else. And I have to admit I was one of those folks for a while (I was putting myself through grad school and I was very poor) but if I ahd gotten really sick, I would have had to get "charity" care and the cost of that care gets passed on to everyone in higher medical costs!

Nelie

The whole health care issue is very complex. In the US there are 2 basic types of health insurance PPO's and HMO's. The PPO's tend to be tougher to get decent coverage out of although you can typically "see your own doctors". The HMO's, like Kaiser Permantente tend to give complete care services with focus on prevention. My wife and I pay almost $1,500/month for our small group plan with Kaiser. We have been totally satisified with our doctors and have a very good plan that even covers eye care and dental. $5 doctor visits, $5 prescriptions, $10 lab tests, etc.

Socialized (or so called "universal") health care will never work in the US. For one thing would you want the government running the health care system? This is not to state that there isn't a need for a more accessible health care system for the uninsured and underinsured. People of means will refuse to give up the access to health care that they have enjoyed for many years - this is why Hillary went no where when she attempted health care reform during the Clinton sdministration. Even in communist countries, like China, there is a multi-tiered system of health care and the better, newer hospitals are where the top paid workers go for their health needs.

Further complicating things is that the main cause for the increase in costs is also tied to the pharmacuetical industry. It costs a lot of money to test and bring new drugs to market. Are there huge profits to be made? Of course but we do embrace a capitalist system here don't we? And companies are also in business to make a profit both for them and their investors.

Another dark side is that countries having socialized medicine typically have huge tax liabilities on their citizens.

Bill is absolutely correct about the state governments having their fingers in the pie as well. Arizona, for example won't allow HMO's, hence no Kaiser.

Again, I will just say this. I would MUCH rather have the government running my health care than a company whose main obligation is to make as large a profit as possible for their shareholders. That goal is fundamentally and basically at odds with good health care.

By the way, my health insurance is a PPO, not an HMO, and I have had excellent coverage from them so far. No hassles whatsoever. Whereas I know of people who have had real problems with HMOs (you can chose an HMO plan if you want at my workplace) so I'm not sure it's the distinction between the two that makes the difference.

One thing that obviously does make a difference is whether you are covered under a group plan or are buying your own individual plan. When I started my current job, I was still covered by my old insurance plan and was trying to figure out how long I needed to hang onto it. Right before my job started I had a case of abdominal problems, which they thought was diverticulitis, and I was concerned that if I needed further treatment the new plan would exclude it as a pre-existing condition. But I found out that because my plan was a group plan, the contract disallowed that. They had to take me pre-existing conditions and all.

People like us, cancer survivors, who lose their insurance for some reason (like loss of their job--unfortunately not uncommon) who can't get onto a group plan like that are really screwed. And that's one reason for the number of people who are ininsured (who,again, end up costing us all in the long run. Just read an article in the NY Times of health care policy in PA where they did research that showed that 6% of the insurance costs of those who have insurance in PA bascially went to cover the costs of eventually treating the uninsured, usually when they were really critically sick--and their percent of uninsured is quite a bit lower than the nation's--I think they said only 7%).

Nelie