Health Care

JAM right now we are expecting 20K more people to be assigned to Belvoir, thus no matter how large hey build the hospital it will never be big enough. The hospital to start with is quite large. The casting dept for ortho has 6-8 beds, and are filled non-stop with overlapping appts. i.e. you walk in with a cast, they cut it off and send you to x ray, while you are gone somebody slips into your chair to be casted. I have never been in any medical office that has that much traffic.

TPG yes your wife is correct. Also we retired 10/08

Yes it is an option but you stil will have to pay a co-pay, on base there is no co-pay.
 
About the current discussion over healthcare changes, its important to remember for people who advocate a government option healthcare for everyone is that although there would be the capability to use private insurance, most companies would use the government plan because it would be cheaper. And the government insurance plan will NOT be able to provide the same standard of care as private insurance today provides because it would be too expensive and there will definatley huge wait times, and rationing of care as there is in Canada where after 65 you will not get a heart bypass or dialysis, and expensive treatments like chemo will not be available. Even though you are allowing private insurance to exist, if the government program is cheaper, no one will have it. Also it is important to consider the extreme cost that this proposed expansion will have in addition to our already $11.5 TRILLION deficit. All of this big government is going to have to be paid for eventually, and that means wayyy more taxes on americans and businesses :frown:
 
A deficit is your current account balance for a year.

National Debt is the total the US owes for a year.

Either way, that 11.5 trillion number isn't Obama's problem, you can chalk that up to the Republicans.
 
Either way, that 11.5 trillion number isn't Obama's problem, you can chalk that up to the Republicans.

:yllol:

Ah, yes. That river in Egypt pops it's head up again.

I guess Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton NEVER ran a deficit. EVER.

Oh, and neither has Obama (2 Trillion per year and counting).

How's that Hope and Change* working out for you? :biggrin:


* Registered trademark. Used with kind permission of the Seat of Holy Power, 1600 Pennsylvania Avanue, Washington DC.
 
Many senators are now saying they want to use tri-care or VA as the model for the NHS. Over on CC, people have truly bought into the idea that the military has the best system.

What gets my goat is they say that it is free. None of them believe Bullet and I pay for it, have deductibles, limits and can't go to any doctor we chose, but are sent to pre-determined docs. My other thing I can't get, these same people who say the VA system (non-military members) is great were the same that 2 yrs ago calling out Bush and DOD because of Walter Reed.

Please don't bring facts into this. You'll confuse the sheep.

I never had dependents while I was in uniform. My care was 100% free and provided by the government.

I had to use it, too. I had a knee surgery and a back surgery. Sounds great, right?

Well, when you consider that it took the mighty-fine and FREE federal program EIGHT YEARS to figure out that, "Hey, Zaphod blew a disc in his back and needs surgery. Let him have it.", and only after I had waited over a YEAR for an MRI to confirm the fact, then I guess it being free really doesn't make up for it. I was to the point I COULDN'T WALK, but they still insisted it was nothing more than a muscle strain.

You know how long it took the civilian orthopedist to determine that I needed surgery? Less than three minutes, and he didn't even need to look at the MRI.

I've seen what government-run healthcare is like, and it sucks. Now try doing it for 300 million people who aren't constrained by the military's rank, order, and discipline. Good luck. :thumbdown:
 
The healthcare system is broken.

Insurance companies deny coverage because it cost too much. The Tricare remibursement is tie to Medicare so no one wants to take either of them.

My sister in law has bone cancer-mm, it is a rare cancer. Her insurance company has denied and rejected almost everything her doctors have told her needs to survive. The bone marrow transplant is going to cost 100K, they have never used the insurance for anything colds, flu and physicals. So if she survives the fight with the insurance company to get the transplant, and survives the cancer she will be uninsurable. So we have to pray her husband never loses his job.

Insurance is good until you need it.

Then there is the stupidity of a 85 yo man with Alzheimer's being treated with chemo for cancer. The man didn't know who his family was and had become violent. Why treat a man who quailty of life was nil. Hospice care would have been the best. But the dairy farm family heard cancer....he died 6 months later. He had 4 months more a life that were filled with is 82 yo wife dragging him to the doctor/hospital and having him being strapped down because he would pull out the IVs.

That was a waste.
 
The healthcare system is broken.

No, it isn't.

It's just hobbled by politicians who want to control your life through it and by lawyers who want to get rich by suing it.
 
Politicians don't lay you and leave you to 1400 a month cobra payments, when you have 1600 in unemployment a month. My old neighbor in FL, work for a soda syrup maker. The lost the contract with McDonalds and he was laid off. His wife worked for a builder who went belly up. Wife is the middle of Breast Cancer treatment when he was laid off. The have to pay the cobra so she can live, they have 3 months of it left then they are sol. He had found temp. working for an electric company driving a truck and putting up poles after a couple hurricanes, but that was last fall and nobody is hiring in Tampa. The house has been for sale as a short sale for a while, but soon all hell will rain down.

You lose your job you should not lose your insurance.

As to lawyers suing, you would sue if someone cut off the wrong foot or were given HIV, Hep C while getting a colonoscopy at the VA. Yes it can be abused but some for profit hospitals were reusing and cleaning some plastic items like breathing hoses, catherters and syringes. They did this to boost profits and only stopped after being sued by people who contracted staph infections, people died.

But for the grace of god go I, or you.
 
You lose your job you should not lose your insurance.

When your employer is paying the lion share of your insurance, you bet your bippy you should lose it if laid off or fired. Companies (well, except for the UAW ones) aren't in the business of paying people who don't work for them. What's next, if you lose your job you should keep your salary?

Also, if you think that government actions don't resonate through Corporate America and often result in layoffs, then you should really be paying more attention. Nothing makes a company react faster (or have it's costs go through the roof faster) than having government show up at their door. Since the companies are responsible to the stockholders (not the employees), they will do whatever it takes to retain profitablity, and sadly the easiest way to do that is to lay off people you don't need as much as others.

As to lawyers suing, you would sue if someone cut off the wrong foot or were given HIV, Hep C while getting a colonoscopy at the VA.

In cases of gross malpractice, yes. However, it's gotten to the point where doctors are sued for the slightest "error", even when whatever happened had nothing to do with them. Either way, they have to pay big bucks for other sharks to defend them against the first pack of sharks, and guess who ends up getting the bill? You and I do.


And before you ask, YES I've been laid off, and YES I've been sued, so I know exactly what it's like to be in both scenarios. Is it fun? Nope, but I don't go around demanding that the rest of the population pay for MY problems. They are MY responsibility to resolve. I don't feel like paying for people who don't understand that.
 
When your employer is paying the lion share of your insurance, you bet your bippy you should lose it if laid off or fired.

The bigger question should be "why is health care tied to employment?"

If IBM can create a pool of, say 50,000 people (employees), and negotiate a rate with Aetna or Blue Cross, why can't a community do the same thing?

Why can't the Govt create similar (larger? smaller?) sized pools (by zip code? Congressional districts? School districts?) and have the insurance companies bid on a rate to insure every individual and/or family in the pool just like they do if General Electric or Boeing or RJR-Nabisco or any large corporation looks for an employee health insurance plan?

It seems pretty simple to me - the insurance companies can still make their profits as they do now, they can charge a rate that they feel is competitive enough to get the business, and the "pool" of "to-be-insured" people can choose the best rate/coverage they can negotiate, and everyone in the "group" will be offered the same rate, without the fear or burden that an economic slowdown/recession/depression may not only cost them their job, but indeed, their life.
 
Hand out free aything and it will be popular. Whether or not it's any good is a different matter.


Medicare is free???? Holy smokes.

I guess that 1.45 percent that an employer and employee each make to Medicare on my payroll is an illusion...

Whowouldathunkit? Must be a gubmint conspiracy!
 
Also, if you think that government actions don't resonate through Corporate America and often result in layoffs, then you should really be paying more attention. Nothing makes a company react faster (or have it's costs go through the roof faster) than having government show up at their door

ABSOLUTELY, POSITEVELY!

We are a CAPITALISTIC society, the goal is create wealth for the investor, not the employee or union. Govt being forced with an increased govt imposed financial burden will result in shaving costs somewhere else, easiest place is benefits. Will you quit your job because you are now paying $25 a month more in premiums with less coverage? I sincerely doubt that! They know they are in the drivers seat. The higher the unemployment rate the more power they hold.
 
The bigger question should be "why is health care tied to employment?"

If IBM can create a pool of, say 50,000 people (employees), and negotiate a rate with Aetna or Blue Cross, why can't a community do the same thing?

Why can't the Govt create similar (larger? smaller?) sized pools (by zip code? Congressional districts? School districts?) and have the insurance companies bid on a rate to insure every individual and/or family in the pool just like they do if General Electric or Boeing or RJR-Nabisco or any large corporation looks for an employee health insurance plan?

It seems pretty simple to me - the insurance companies can still make their profits as they do now, they can charge a rate that they feel is competitive enough to get the business, and the "pool" of "to-be-insured" people can choose the best rate/coverage they can negotiate, and everyone in the "group" will be offered the same rate, without the fear or burden that an economic slowdown/recession/depression may not only cost them their job, but indeed, their life.

Actually, large employers often "self-insure" basically using the insurance company as a claims processor with a set of rules tuned (include this, don't include that, etc) by the employer to manage costs. Over large numbers of employees it all comes out in the wash and is cheaper than paying an insurance company to remove your risks. And there is supposed to be a wall between the insurance company and the employer/funder to ensure that they don't know who exactly is costing them money.

Unfortunately, even if you throw all the folks who don't have insurance today into a pool, their cost is likely to be (on average) higher than most of the existing pools. Basically, you have a larger percentage of uninsurables out there today than in most companies. By and large, employed people also tend to have healthier lifestyles than those who are not employed (think of the large number of folks on the fringes).

I think the bigger problem is a lack of a secondary insurance for medical. In many lines of insurance (I'll use shipping for an example), an insurance company may insure X shipping lines boats for $Y per year. X's ships have been sailing off the coast of Somalia because of their trading partners and are now more likely to be hijacked. These insurers typically have secondary insurance limiting their exposure because a small number of incidents can blow their operations out of proportion, because in most years there aren't too many piracy claims, but when they do arise it is expensive.

I think if there is a place for the government to help people get back into the private insurance market, it might be to provide some sort of secondary insurance limiting the exposure of the insurance companies in their first years of dealing with previously uninsured (but not necessarily uninsurable) clients. This would probably be a temporary institution until all players are back in the private insurance market given a rule that you cannot be denied a change of insurance (or excluded for pre-existing conditions) if you are currently insured (at least 5 years).

And I agree that access to insurance shouldn't be controlled by employers. Granted they provide an efficient mechanism for enrollment and fee payment which should continue. Leaving many individuals to pay premiums out of their take home pay would lead to fewer insured, as many make poor decisions taking risks and then trying to lay the penalties off on the taxpayer, so payroll premium payment (like tax withholding) is a good thing.

Perhaps the unemployment insurance system should be structured to continue paying medical premiums in addition to a slightly reduced benefit, as often newly unemployed individuals often make the poor choice of dropping medical insurance because they haven't saved enough for the rainy day of unemployment. Yes, it would cost more and perhaphs even discourage employment, but in the game of robbing Peter to pay Paul, preserving health is probably more important than preserving gainful employment, as most individuals will adjust quickly when their stomach is empty, but not when their stomach has a tumor.

Basically, solving healthcare is about getting people to engage in the correct behaviors - keeping insurance, making sound decisions about when to go to the doc, etc. Healthcare is provided, just not in a way that is efficient (poor use of facilities) nor encourages socially responsible use of and payment to the system.

Not everyone can afford Cadillac healthcare with no waiting and the latest new drugs and technologies as the first line of treatment. To those who can afford it, please buy the appropriate insurance and use it. For those less fortunate, I think even if the rest of us have to subsidize it to some extent, we are better off having them in a system that rewards good behavior and punishes poor choices (go to the emergency room for a cold and get sent home after waiting 6 hours to get to the front of the triage line).
 
Medicare is free???? Holy smokes.

I guess that 1.45 percent that an employer and employee each make to Medicare on my payroll is an illusion...

Whowouldathunkit? Must be a gubmint conspiracy!

Considering that the people paying it aren't the people reaping the benefits of it, then YES, it is essentially free for those who get it.

Also, considering what it pays out to people compared to what they paid in, YES, it is a huge return on investment. Too bad the difference is written in red ink on an IOU to our grandchildren.
 
The bigger question should be "why is health care tied to employment?"

If IBM can create a pool of, say 50,000 people (employees), and negotiate a rate with Aetna or Blue Cross, why can't a community do the same thing?

Why can't the Govt create similar (larger? smaller?) sized pools (by zip code? Congressional districts? School districts?) and have the insurance companies bid on a rate to insure every individual and/or family in the pool just like they do if General Electric or Boeing or RJR-Nabisco or any large corporation looks for an employee health insurance plan?

It seems pretty simple to me - the insurance companies can still make their profits as they do now, they can charge a rate that they feel is competitive enough to get the business, and the "pool" of "to-be-insured" people can choose the best rate/coverage they can negotiate, and everyone in the "group" will be offered the same rate, without the fear or burden that an economic slowdown/recession/depression may not only cost them their job, but indeed, their life.

No argument from me, except that when government gets involved, it invariably gets screwed up. Even so, in your scenario, each person ijn the group is paying into a system for a benefit THEY get, and they are paying into it to get the benefit THEMSELVES. Finally, it is optional; they are not being FORCED to participate any more than I am forced to participate in my employer's plans.

Sadly, free universal healthcare will be neither free, nor inexpensive, nor of good quality, nor optional. It most likely won't be universal, either. Does anyone actually think that the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Ried, Kennedy, Dodd, and the rest of that crowd are going to debase themselves by going down to the local government clinic? Of course not! They'll conveniently write in an esxception for the ruling class and have a seperate gold-plated plan for themselves. Count on it.
 
Last edited:
Considering that the people paying it aren't the people reaping the benefits of it, then YES, it is essentially free for those who get it.

Also, considering what it pays out to people compared to what they paid in, YES, it is a huge return on investment. Too bad the difference is written in red ink on an IOU to our grandchildren.

Indexer isn't worth engaging.
 
Back
Top