Universal Health Care... what would this mean...

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 3, 2008

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/chartcartcharts/chartcartcharts_show.htm?doc_id=527577&attrib_id=14465

Woodenpug, BSN · Feb 3, 2008

You failed to mention that that drunk driver was in Arizona and is an illegal alien with no insurance and drunk. So now our fisherman is SOL because he bleeds out all over the road from his ruptured spleen before EMS arrives, and national healthcare would not have helped him any how.
This is a fact of life around these parts.

Too true, however which bad decisions did the fisherman make? And perhaps, EMS does arrive on time - let's not overload your student fisherman with too much bad luck.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 3, 2008

O.K here is my sob story: I work 2 jobs, I work 7 days a week. Health insurance at job # 1 would cost me 1400.00 dollars per month, thats 700.00 per pay check, at job 2 1000.00 per month or 250.00 per pay check. I insure out of my own pocket my wife and my 2 kids for 150.00 per month with a $ 10,000.00 deductable, my wife has a pre-existing condition which is not covered and I pay for that all on my own. I cannot even deduct the premium I pay off of my income tax. I don't whine about it I just do it.
Those of you who are whining about COBRA, my violins are playing. If you are going to switch jobs and move, perhaps you should think about saving up enough money to cover COBRA while you are in transition, if you think you cannot save the money then you should reevaluate your spending habits. makes sense to me.

You and your family are among the underinsured Americans. As a nurse you probably help your wife avoid exacerbations of her illness but the point remains that you and your family should have access to better and more affordable coverage. One of the primary definitions of insurance is to spread risk across a larger group.

The kind of coverage you have is the kind that forces families into Bankruptcy when an unexpected illness or injury occurs. I don't know what an LPN makes in Az but I would venture to guess that you are betting 25-30% of your annual salary against catastrophic illness or injury. The larger question becomes What would happen to your family if you couldn't work? You are already working 2 jobs to make ends meet for your family.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 3, 2008

Jolie, BSN · Feb 3, 2008

Sounds to me like scottlgarrett and his family are doing just fine.

There is nothing wrong with high-deductible health insurance. Millions of us carry it and find it quite satisfactory, for a number of reasons:

1. Premiums are affordable.

2. We are responsible for budgeting for predictible healthcare expenses and for non-catastrophic costs.3. Many providers are willing to negotiate rates for services prior to meeting the deductible, giving us control over costs.

4. We have protection against catastrophic loss.

High deductible health insurance is what insurance was originally designed and intended to be: protection from catastrophic costs. Insurance is not, nor should it be pre-paid healthcare.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 3, 2008

scottlgarrett · Feb 3, 2008

You and your family are among the underinsured Americans. As a nurse you probably help your wife avoid exacerbations of her illness but the point remains that you and your family should have access to better and more affordable coverage. One of the primary definitions of insurance is to spread risk across a larger group.
The kind of coverage you have is the kind that forces families into Bankruptcy when an unexpected illness or injury occurs. I don't know what an LPN makes in Az but I would venture to guess that you are betting 25-30% of your annual salary against catastrophic illness or injury. The larger question becomes What would happen to your family if you couldn't work? You are already working 2 jobs to make ends meet for your family.

Well I have a hefty life insurance policy on my wife, so that gives me peace of mind. Her preexcisting condition is hyperthyroid and she does not medicate for it her MD just monitors her TSH T3 and T4. Not much for me to do there.

If there is a catastrophic illness or injury that person will still be treated and cared for with or without insurance, bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to anyone. If I could not work then my family would step in and help out until such time as I die or am able to work again. I still do not want the government giving me anything.

By the way I was not whining when I posted my sob story, I work 2 full time jobs of my own accord, not because I have to. I choose not to buy the health insurance offered by my employers because I feel it is too expensive. I buy the BCBS health insurance with the 10,000.00 deductable because we are mostly healthy. If something big and bad does happen then I am on the hook for 10K.

The 'NANNY STATE" you reffered to last night will come about when all citizens of the Unites States are forced to take healthcare from the NANNY government.

85K 2 jobs my life.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 3, 2008

Sounds to me like scottlgarrett and his family are

scottlgarrett · Feb 3, 2008

Sounds to me like scottlgarrett and his family are
Perhaps you could find some statistics from countries with similar populations to the United states.
I just took a look at the website where you are getting your graphs from, and it surely doen not look like there is an agenda.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 4, 2008

Sounds to me like scottlgarrett and his family are doing just fine.
There is nothing wrong with high-deductible health insurance. Millions of us carry it and find it quite satisfactory, for a number of reasons:
1. Premiums are affordable.
2. We are responsible for budgeting for predictible healthcare expenses and for non-catastrophic costs.3. Many providers are willing to negotiate rates for services prior to meeting the deductible, giving us control over costs.
4. We have protection against catastrophic loss.
High deductible health insurance is what insurance was originally designed and intended to be: protection from catastrophic costs. Insurance is not, nor should it be pre-paid healthcare.

It is much easier to self insure against a $10,000 loss with a $150,000/yr annual income than a $60,000/yr annual income. A 6.7% loss of income can be absorbed much more easily than a 16.7% loss of annual income.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 4, 2008

Well I have a hefty life insurance policy on my wife, so that gives me peace of mind. Her preexcisting condition is hyperthyroid and she does not medicate for it her MD just monitors her TSH T3 and T4. Not much for me to do there.
If there is a catastrophic illness or injury that person will still be treated and cared for with or without insurance, bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to anyone. If I could not work then my family would step in and help out until such time as I die or am able to work again. I still do not want the government giving me anything.
By the way I was not whining when I posted my sob story, I work 2 full time jobs of my own accord, not because I have to. I choose not to buy the health insurance offered by my employers because I feel it is too expensive. I buy the BCBS health insurance with the 10,000.00 deductable because we are mostly healthy. If something big and bad does happen then I am on the hook for 10K.
The 'NANNY STATE" you reffered to last night will come about when all citizens of the Unites States are forced to take healthcare from the NANNY government.
85K 2 jobs my life.

The Nanny state reference is a link to a book that details how the conservative movement has used government to enrich themselves using government. The links I posted very clearly called for giving workers and employers the choice to buy into Medicare rather than purchase insurance on the private market.

This graphic illustrates how conservatives have enriched themselves using health care at the public expense:

On a deeper philosophical level we all use services organized and provided by government. For example:

Safe roads

public health

municipal water and electric systems

public parks

public schools

public libraries

public universities.

medications developed through government research

police servies

fire departments

and so forth....

For those unfortunate enough to become disabled and/or need vocational rehabilitation those services are available.

It is very difficult to say "I don't want anything from government" when we use these services on a regular basis. These are all services that act to improve the overall health of the community.

For another take on this issue see

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican at http://tvnewslies.org/Day_in_The_Life_Of_Joe_Middle1.pdf .

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 4, 2008

marketplace money had an interesting story last night about the experiences of a man living with diabetes and his access to health care. (at http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/01/living_with_and_paying_for_diabetes/ and audio at http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/money/2008/02/01_soundmoney?)

vigeland: so, what have you learned about the costs of managing a chronic disease -- insulin, needles, other supplies?
lazarus: they're extensive. in some cases, some diabetics tell me the spend about $10,000 a year on this thing. you're talking about your blood glucose meter, you're talking about the test strips that are required for that (and i do as many as seven to 10 tests a day), but there are other things as well: you've got you're insulin, you've got your needles, you've got the lancets you need to poke your finger -- again 7 to 10 times a day -- and so you have a lot of fixed costs attached to a chronic disease.
vigeland: can you give us an idea of those fixed costs? when you talk about, say, the strips -- what does that set you back?
lazarus: this is where it gets really, really interesting tess, because you have roughly 21 million diabetics in the united states right now. according to some estimates, the number of diabetics is going to double to more than 40 million over the next few years, primarily because of the obesity epidemic. so, you'd think that these economies of scale would bring the costs of much of the diagnostics of diabetes down, but they don't. and in the case of test strips, which is a very good example, each one of these little tiny strips, they retail for $1 each and a handful of major drug companies that have cornered the market, they're all selling at the same exact price of $1 a piece. now, if that's a monopoly, that's clearly an oligopoly and you're looking at, i would say, cartel-like behavior, if none of these companies are able to compete on price. and when i started investigating the cost of test strips, i discovered that, in fact, the cost of manufacturing the test strips is closer to 9 cents a strip. that's 900 percent markup on a captive market with a chronic disease.
vigeland: how is it that insurance companies haven't made demands to bring those costs down or that even patients themselves have said "you know what, this is ridiculous; can't we do something about this?"
lazarus: patients don't seem to have a powerful voice in this equation and this isn't just diabetes now, we could be talking about any chronic disease, whether it's heart disease, aids, cancer, thyroid, there do not seem to be patient empowerment avenues.

if the free market was going to work patients would pay 20 cents per test instead of a dollar/test. the companies would still make 100% markup on test strips at that price. i think the only way to push these costs down is to have an entity in the room that can aggressively bargain prices down.