You are validating my point that insurance is a sucker's bet. I don't feel I should be forced to bet against myself.

Are you married, have children, or extended family? Why burden them with possibly caring for you or having to go without because the money they have has to be spent paying your medical bills if anything ever happened to you? You can purchase very cheap, basic insurance. I've seen in friends and family how one unexpected medical condition drained their live savings.

No one is responsible for me but me.

It is not that I cannot afford insurance.

It is that I am not insurable because of my pre-existing condition.

No insurance company will take me because my average medical costs per year are $40 to $60k. Just the hospital bill for my surgery in October was $19.4k. Considering I was admitted every six to eight weeks for the last decade...well, you can do the math.

So that shit just builds up on my credit, hospitals seek judgments and I will end up having to do a medical bankruptcy.

Luckily, that last surgery seems to have been the winner. I am praying my medical costs stay down like they have been so far this year. So far this year I have been able to pay for everything I've needed out of pocket...a little less than $1k a month.

The above is the reason that I demand universal health care. Insurance companies should not be able to exclude the sick in favor of the healthy. That defeats the entire purpose of insurance and risk pools. I would happily pay a higher premium with higher deductibles because I am so sickly...but somebody has to offer to cover me in the first place.

Edit: never mind...gotcha...re-read.

You know what, I'd be all for that if doctors and hospitals could refuse to treat people like yourself on the basis of pre-signed "don't treat me" waivers. However, it is pretty silly we all have to insure our CARS but not have health insurance.

I'm all for discount prepay care for people under 21 and over 67, mentally ill, possibly pre-natal/birth care and military veterans. Of course, you'd waive your right to sue in all but the very worst cases -- and even then there'd be fixed damages.

The rest I think the real problem is the over-education/government certification monopoly of health care providers in the U.S. in comparison to other countries.

You hit on something there. Malpractice suits are out of control. They drive far too large of a percentage of health care costs. Malpractice premiums are through the roof and the only way for practices to cover the cost is to raise fees. In Maryland, many doctors have to pay hundreds of thousands per year in malpractice insurance.

I've had numerous incidents where I could have sued a doctor or hospital and probably would have gotten a nice settlement. I have not sued.

That's actually not true. If you get into a motorcycle accident and sustain severe injuries, doctors are required to help you. They don't have a choice in the matter.

Now, let's say you actually do get into a really bad accident. It would be quite easy to rack up a $25k bill before you even gain consciousness again.

Of course, that's not the end of it, because in such a case you'd be likely die within days or even hours if you were removed from the hospital. So, let's add another $25k to make sure you stay alive. That's $50k so far - more than most uninsured people could afford to pay.

Without even going going into the possibility of permanent damage (partial paralysis, brain damage, etc), that leaves the taxpayer with a pretty big amount of money paid that in in most cases isn't going to come back if the patient is uninsured.

The risk in the bet you are taking is more often than not passed on to the taxpayer. And that's why mandatory health insurance is a good thing - it makes sure people cannot choose to get a "free ride" that others end up paying for.

The only "reasonable" alternative entails having people literally die in the streets and on the doorsteps of hospitals because they're uninsured. And that's a situation most people simply do not want.

Complicated.

Well stated.

By law I have to have auto insurance, so not really applicable.

I dont think your auto/bike insurance covers medical expenses unless you are paying for that and then to what limit.

Oh yes it does. When I had my accident my car insurance paid up to twenty thousand dollars of my medical.
Unfortunately it broke my neck and both arms so I had a quarter million dollar bill.

And like baddog said...I paid it in payments over a few years.

I do have medical insurance now. But I sure am glad I didn't waste my money on it until 2002. I was 41 years old before I started paying for my health insurance. That means they did NOT get my money from 18 to 41 years of age.

I guess now a young adult will have no choice but to pay for insurance. Just like they forced us all to buy car insurance...and then turned around and hooked up the DMV with the insurance companies so they could raise your rates everytime you get a speeding ticket. Boy, there are a LOT of rich insurance company lobbyists and a lot of politicians federal, state, county, and city that make a lot of money off people with that whole scam.

Did you know that you can legally self insure yourself on car insurance? Not many can afford it, but you can actually put a hundred grand or so in an escrow account and insure yourself and tell the insurance companies to go suck your dick.

Found out that little tidbit a few years ago from one of my brothers who is in the car business. Never knew about it because the govt. and the insurance companies do not want you to know about it. They enjoy taking your money too much.

There are many things wrong with the health care system besides insurance. I remember being billed $27 for a Tylenol tablet once. Many many things wrong.

If you force people by law to have insurance then wouldn't you also have to force insurance companies to insure "high risk" people, those that insurance companies would normally decline? Wouldn't that in theory raise rates for everyone?

What happens when someone is not able to afford the mandatory health insurance? How would that be enforced? You would make people pay fines if they don't buy insurance, put them in jail, etc?

Auto insurance covers that in the US, even if you're the one at fault?

Well, alright then:

You slip in the bathroom and hit your head. Or you fall of a ladder. Or you suffer a stroke while walking down the street. Etc.

Since there are many possible reasons for requiring medical help which do not involve vehicles, the point still stands.

No deregulation and out right greed have led to the current situation. But of course what would a Republican do if they couldn't blame everything on the evil socialist liberals.

:helpme

No idea, it's a difficult problem to solve insurance is a tricky thing -- the insurance companies only really want to insure healthy people and soak them.

Another problem is the one highlighted by sudden serious accidents and/or illnesses hospitals can't refuse care -- so they provide services to uninsured or under-insured and then everyone else with insurance pays those bills in increased costs.

The problem is that medical costs go up at a much higher rate than wages. Unlike other things, medical care gets more and more expensive, not less. If you look at the rate of increase, nobody will be able to afford it in 20 years. THIS is the reason something needs to be done.

And yes, the opposition to health care reform is starting to float those new numbers that make the 46 million uninsured look like an inflated number and claim it is really closer to 8. It's simply not true.

My brother was starting a new business and had a pregnant wife. They were both 35 and they were paying $880 a month for coverage. He could afford it, but honestly, not many can. 40 million are in poverty. Do you think a single mother who makes $24K a year can afford health insurance? Don't forget, the poverty line is a family of 4 on less than $21k a year.

Something to think about. Employee heath care is how the man keeps you down. Many people would love to quit their jobs and start a business, a business that could fuel economic growth, but they can't because they have a young family and simply can't risk losing their insurance. This is a VERY common scenario.

Not to mention, if there was a federal health care system, the American auto industry would probably not be bankrupt right now. It's the legacy health costs that killed GM.

Health care reform is good business. It helps existing companies and gives people the freedom to create new businesses without having to worry about their own health care or that of their employees.

You don't have auto insurance I presume.

And IF I hit the lottery, and IF Obama doesn't fuck up this county more, and IF "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?

I don't take insurance on black jack either.

Yes, it would.

No, it wouldn't. In fact, it would be likely to lower rates for everyone.

You see, in many cases preventive medicine is both far more effective and far cheaper than emergency care. If "high risk" people don't have insurance, they are likely to avoid seeking medical care until they have no other option. At that point, chances are that treatment will be far more costly and surpass their means, meaning that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.

Keep in mind that most people who are considered to be uninsurable end up needing medical care at one point or another, and in many cases, they won't be able to afford the treatment but will be given treatment anyway.

Aside from that, the fact that people will be insured throughout their lives means that many young, healthy people will be paying into the system as well. And while some might consider that unfair, keep in mind that they're also paying for any future treatment they might need.

The end result of universal coverage is that those who are already insured will end up paying considerably less than they do now.

There are several possibilities. The best, in my view, is to simply enroll those who refuse to get their own insurance plan into a state-wide or nation-wide basic plan, for which they'll receive invoices. That would take care of many of the people who don't get insurance simply because they're lazy. Those who would fail to pay would end up building up debts and having their assets repossessed - and, in the end, possibly seeing jailtime.

Now, some people will argue that there are people who "can't pay for health insurance". However, as it stands now, when those people need medical help the taxpayer ends up paying for them - which means there's already an unofficial form of government health care, just a really badly implemented one.

One thing few Americans seem to realize is that their government spends just as much money on health care per capita as other western countries which do have universal coverage. The real difference is that only in America, individuals and corporations pay the same amount on top of that as well.

Take a look at this graph (taken from The Economist):

http://i31.tinypic.com/2yy8ubn.gif

The American government actually spends more on health care than the countries with "socialized medicine" do.

And despite what many Americans believe, health care in the US isn't any better than in those countries. Just take a look at things like infant mortality rate, life expectancy, or premature death rate - the US ranks among the worst of all western countries for all of them.

Your comments are usually fairly intelligent, but do you not see your contradiction?

No surprise considering how much bigger the US is compared to them.

Libertine
Stop wasting your time and talents with people who have already decided one way or the other. I'm off to go make money.

The problem isn't that we all need to be forced to have insurance.

The problem it we are being overcharged by the medical industry and the prices are being set in conjunction with the insurance companies and kept that way by payoffs to our government's politicians.

It's a money game. Has nothing to do with healing the sick.

Only in this case, the numerous "ifs" combine to form a big fucking "when".

Spending your entire life without needing costly medical attention and dying quickly at the end of it, is in fact close to winning the lottery. In all likelihood, you won't be a lottery winner.

Average lifetime health care expenditures are about $300k right now. On an individual basis, they aren't distributed equally across the years. Rather, there are specific incidents, occurring more frequently as one gets older, which form a large part of the total. Most people do not have the spare cash to pay for them as they occur - especially because those incidents tend to interfere with work.

The idea of insurance is not that you're placing a bet, but that you start a payment plan for something incredibly expensive that you'll most likely end up buying at some random point in your life.

What you are doing is not refusing to bet against yourself. It's transferring your own risks to society as a whole. If you die of cancer and rack up a few million in medical bills along the way, the taxpayer will be picking up the tab.

What kind of cancer costs millions?

Just an FYI: If I had cancer, I sure the fuck would not waste millions on something that was going to kill me anyway.

There is no contradiction. Costs wouldn't be higher, and while they might stay the same, most likely they will actually be lower.

You didn't notice that the graph in question shows per capita figures?

The absolute number for the US is higher of course, but also the per capita number (which was in the graph I posted), as well as the percentage of GDP. The first is related size, the other two aren't.

and you can prove this how?

Proof... that your insurance costs would go down because of social gov insurance?

Very easy to prove, so just checking...

Again I will say...that is because the medical industy OVERCHARGES us here in the U.S.

Right down to the drugs they prescribe. That's why you can buy anything the doctor prescribes you for half the price in Mexico. And for that matter...you can buy most of the medications across the counter because our govt. here in the U.S. works hand in hand with the insurance companies and medical industry to make damn sure that we all have to go see the doctor and pay an outrageous bill for the visit for the luxury of paying an overinflated price for medications.

And no, I'm not talking about "serious" medications. I'm talking stupid shit like propecia to grow your hair. You have to pay to see a doctor for that? And then pay a fortune for it? Same for Cialis and a hundred other little things like that. Fuck that, that's why millions and millions of people buy all their medications WITHOUT a doctors prescription online.

And THAT is probably one of the reasons that the govt. is hellbent on "fixing" health care. The insurance and medical community wants to stop losing that money.

I'll repeat...this is all about money, no matter which way it goes. If we have national health care there will be a lot of people getting very rich. And if we don't have it, there will be a lot of people getting very rich. And the American people foot the bill for these assholes either way.

Many kinds, actually. Especially the ones where it's not certain if you'll die. You know, the ones where you will get lots and lots of expensive treatment because there's a good chance of survival.

Even if you get an easily treatable form of cancer with a very high survival rate, the minimum it'll end up costing is probably $100k+.

On the other hand, if you get something that only has a moderate survival rate, and you spend a few years getting treatment, maybe going into remission once or twice after which the cancer comes back again, several millions spent in treatment really isn't that outlandish.

Keep in mind that for something like leukemia, an allogeneic bone marrow transplant alone will set you back a cool $250k.

Well, I don't know... by pointing out Western Europe? Maybe Canada as well? Or Japan?

So, you are just guessing. Thank you for at least admitting that.

It is outlandish. I am 56 years old. There is no ongoing cancer treatment that I would bother with since the treatments suck as bad as the disease. I am not going to spend my last years in a hospital bed, no way, no how.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for most procedures, the costs in the US are only slightly higher than those in Western Europe. There are some big exceptions, of course.

And keep in mind that medical specialists actually earn more in the Netherlands than in the US, for example.

I can't say I'm completely unbiased here, but:

Yes you should pay to see a doctor for things like that.

Aside from possible side effects, interaction with other medication and unwanted effects on existing conditions, something like erectile dysfunction can also be a sign of heart disease. So if you decide not to visit your GP and just order Cialis online, you could be ignoring the early warning signs of a heart attack that will kill you 5 years from now.

Yep, there will be people getting rich either way. The big difference is that UHC (implemented well) will end up saving the taxpayer money, while at the same time saving lives.

That's what you're saying now.

Few people say the same when they're faced with the choice between either certain death or a good chance of survival.

Yeah, how many expensive cancers out there have a good chance of survival? You think a bone marrow transplant offers a good chance of survival?

Leukemia has a 50%+ 5 year survival rate, and that's the most expensive type of cancer to treat.

These days, survival rates for most types of cancer are quite high as long as they are detected early on. Of course, you're still screwed if you get something like lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, etc.

The way it's going now, both treatment costs and survival rates will continue to grow sharply over the next few decades.

It's the American way.