View Single Post
Old 09-24-2008, 12:16 PM   #65
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.
It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or tittle wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice. And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.
When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever s/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
"Less than to maintain an insurance plan". In CHC if an insurance company fails then they fail. You shop for the most competitive and one you want. With UHC if that government is socialistic or communistic then you have to pay because the government says so. Less choice. In socialism or communism if the UHC insurance company fails I believe you'll get charged more to keep that one alive or government bail out.
UHC spreads the risk out over the entire population, not just those who are willing to pay for insurance. We already pay through taxes for Medicaid for anyone on welfare already, and Medicare for the over-65 crowd. UHC would extend healthcare to everyone in the working and middle classes who can't afford insurance right now because of pre-existing conditions, inadequate funds, workplaces not offering health care, and so on. Spreading out the risk might make the costs for us who do pay insurance now go down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Yes, but it is also in a government that is capitalistic. And people in the military don't have to seek help from the VA. They have the choice to seek Private Health Care.
How many disabled veterans do you know who are able to afford the extremely high costs of private health insurance? You're assuming they a. have the funds to pay out of pocket or b. have the funds to pay the outrageous fees that an insurance company would charge for someone who has a pre-existing condition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.
Research projects are approved here for gov't grants before the work begins, and that's the same in other countries, too. Why would there be less gain from creating a cure? In either system there's a drive to find treatments that are less invasive, more effective, and less costly, because both insurance companies and the gov't want to minimize costs as much as possible. I read British ophthalmology studies just like I do American ones. Why? Both countries are doing great research in eye care, and CHC or UHC has had no bearing on that. I would like to see an example or statistic on where someone has done research for an UHC system and not gotten paid, because I find that difficult to believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.
When I speak as a moderator I use the different color to differentiate from when I post as a fellow member so there is no confusion.
You have repeatedly stated that poor people are being lazy and could get out of poverty if they worked harder. A number of us have shown you situations where that is simply not true. I, as a fellow member here, aml personally tired of hearing that an entire group of people are lazy and therefore should be denied a basic right to healthcare.




Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Some will end up on the street because though they tried they didn't get the job in time.
And these are the same 'lazy people' that you say don't deserve basic health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Wish I could remember the name of the movie, but it was about this black guy with his son. His mother left because though he was selling these x ray machines he wasn't making the money....He ended up being a millionaire and having his own company. Wish I could remember the name though.
You're using a fiction to prove your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
The more I talk to him I do. Don't dismiss my father. It isn't irrelevant. It shows those in CHC have compassion and that we are a humane system.
It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
From our American perspective we feel our CHC is better than most UHCs. That's what we think and present evidence to support that. As other countries do the same if they have a UHC. It wouldn't look good to present info that shows UHC to be not as good as CHC.
Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
I think when you get down to things it's all a matter of what you believe. Any data can especially today can be interoperated the way one chooses.
Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.
I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Especially when onlookers on this thread can themselves look up the info on their owns and make up their own minds.
Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Who am I to tell them how to think. Besides, I feel that most of us if not all of us posting here already have our minds made up.
That doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Because it's taking what isn't yours. That's my money not yours. I should be able to choose which charity or who I wish to give or not give to. That is my free right as an US citizen. No government should tell me who disadvantaged I'm to give to. It's not their place.
So, don't pay for your own insurance then, because you might be paying for someone else's care. That's how insurance works--it charges money to you based on a certain risk level. If you don't get sick, great, but you're paying for someone else's care who did get sick. A UHC would spread that risk to a greater number of people so that our total premiums/taxes at a personal level could be lower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
The government and health care systems shouldn't play robin hood.
You think insurance companies are completely transparent? Excuse me while I double over laughing, with all due respect to mimartin.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
I said ultimately it's up to the government.
No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
And this is not moderating to say make your own decisions and find yourself. It's just a lot is based on opinion and who is writing the facts on this and that. If I give into that supports CHC that might be viewed as just from a person or group that prefers that.
Instead of providing this long explanation of why you don't want to provide facts to back your position, how about you provide some facts and let each reader make his or her own decision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.
Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.
No--the voters say so. Do you honestly think that poor care would get covered up? No. There will be whistle-blowers in any system. At least the gov't has accountability to all voters, rather than just their shareholders.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,