# Health Care in America



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 21, 2010)

This evening, your House of Representatives passed legislation.  They call it "comprehensive health care reform", but I've only heard bits and pieces of what's in the new law.  What I've heard is that the new law:

1. prevents health insurance companies from denying your claim because you had a "pre-existing medical condition".  I think that means that insurance companies will want every new customer to go through a complete physical before being accepted as a client.

2. that children will be covered under their parent's health insurance until they reach the age of 26 if they aren't covered by their own health insurance.

3. that companies can shop for medical insurance for their employees from underwriters anywhere in the US, not just within their own state.


I'm wondering how this law about pre-existing medical conditions applies in a case like lung cancer from exposure to asbestos.  If a person goes to their doctor because a persistant cough has now turned into coughing up blood, and that turns out to be lung cancer from exposure to asbestos decades earlier, when does the "pre-existing medical condition" come into existance?  When that person was first exposed to asbestos, when he/she was first medically affected by it, or when they were diagnosed with cancer?  Lung diseases like Mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos can take decades to develop, and there's no know safe exposure threshold.  So, theoretically, at least, a person can inhale asbestos fibers because they were standing downwind of a gravel road and come down with lung cancer 20, 30 or 40 years later.
     The concensus of opinion seems to be that we're all individuals and each of us has a different susceptibility to exposure to asbestos.  Some of us are more resistant to the stuff than others.  So, did the old rules mean that insurance companies could avoid paying on claims simply by saying that the claimant had a pre-existing medical condition in that he/she had been exposed to asbestos 40 years ago, and that their fate had been determined then?  In that case, the insurance company could deny any and all claims for asbestos related diseases by claiming the client had a "pre-existing medical condition" for the past 40 years.

Also, they were saying on TV that this new comprehensive health care reform would prevent government money being used to pay for abortions.  I know abortion is a sensitive topic because of the religious implications, but I think that in many cases, abortion is the most practical alternative.  Simply not providing funding for abortions in cases like that is ignoring the problem exists, and forcing some women to give birth to children they don't want and aren't able to properly care for.

Does anyone know what else is in this new health care reform law?  How is it going to affect you guys' daily lives?


----------



## travelover (Mar 22, 2010)

Here is a summary from CBS news on what is in the bill.

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I'm retired and have a high deductible policy provided to me by my former employer. For me, I see no change. However, if I lost this coverage, it means that I could buy health care even though I have a preexisting condition (like everyone over 50 does). With a serious disease like cancer and no health insurance, I could literally be financially ruined after a lifetime of saving and investing. My wife could be left with almost nothing.

I'm hopeful that future legislation lowers the overall cost of medical attention, which I believe is currently over $7000 per person in the US. That is a tough sell, as that $7000 is currently distributed to stakeholders that will fight to maintain their position at the trough.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 22, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> The concensus of opinion seems to be
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 22, 2010)

I stand corrected.

I shall strive to do better by you in future.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 22, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> I shall strive to do better by you in future.



Thank-you, thank-you very much ( in my very best Elvis voice)


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 22, 2010)

Oldog/Newtrick:

Well, you certainly won't be the only one in America that doesn't like what your government has done.  Lots of people don't like the health care reforms for lots of different reasons.  Right now your government is just coming off a spending orgy called the "stimulus plan", so now might not be a good time to engange in another spending spree.  Also, as with every government social program, it's the haves that end up paying the way for the havenots through their taxes.  (Think of it as a "Robin Hood style" of government.)  And, I have a fundamental problem with the concept of sharing my nothing with everyone else.

Only time will tell if this was the best thing, or the worst thing, that Barack Obama ever did.  All we pawns can do is wait and hope it turns out to be a good thing.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 22, 2010)

Hey Nestor, did I ever tell you about the time I saw Elvis at a Burger King?


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 22, 2010)

oldog/newtrick said:


> Hey Nestor, did I ever tell you about the time I saw Elvis at a Burger King?









Do you mean, like... he was working there?


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 22, 2010)

Citizens of this country overwhelmingly disapprove of this health-care reform bill as it is currently written but it appears it is being passed anyway against the wishes of the majority.

So my question is this:
Now that this law has been *shoved up my **** by my government contrary to my wishes, will my insurance company be responsible for the medical costs of having it removed?


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 22, 2010)

Elvis chased me and a friend off his property one time in Memphis.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 22, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> Citizens of this country overwhelmingly disapprove of this health-care reform bill as it is currently written but it appears it is being passed anyway against the wishes of the majority.
> 
> So my question is this:
> Now that this law has been *shoved up my **** by my government contrary to my wishes, will my insurance company be responsible for the medical costs of having it removed?



Oh I'm sure they will with a smile. Kinda like Kathy Bates in that movie..what was it?


----------



## TxBuilder (Mar 23, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> Citizens of this country overwhelmingly disapprove of this health-care reform bill as it is currently written but it appears it is being passed anyway against the wishes of the majority.
> 
> So my question is this:
> Now that this law has been *shoved up my **** by my government contrary to my wishes, will my insurance company be responsible for the medical costs of having it removed?



You betcha


----------



## TheClumsyCarpenter (Mar 23, 2010)

Don't even get me started on this.

I am 27 years old, and I honestly believe I will see the downfall/implosion of America in my lifetime.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 23, 2010)

TheClumsyCarpenter said:


> I am 27 years old, and I honestly believe I will see the downfall/implosion of America in my lifetime.



And I honestly believe that if that happens it will be because of all the special interest lobby groups in Washington that are influencing the opinions of your congressmen and senators, thereby affecting the direction your country goes.

There was a time when your government believed that prescription drugs imported from Canada were less safe than those sold in the USA.  Then, once they started investigating, they found out that in many cases the prescription drugs sold in the USA were made in Canada, and the only difference between the two was that prescription drugs destined for the US market had a FDA sticker applied to the box before shipping.  The reason why prescription drugs were cheaper in Canada was only because we have a law in Canada limiting the percentage price mark-up drug manufacturers can apply to the prescription drugs they make.

I believe that most Americans wanted a government run universal health care system similar to what they have in Canada, Australia, England, Japan, and most other industrialized countries.  Instead, what you guys got was not health care reform, but health insurance reform, and the so called "public option" was cut out of the reform legislation.  From what I could see from this side of the border, there was an awful lot of fear mongering going on, like talk of "death tribunals" for old people and that people could no longer choose which doctor they wanted.  We've had public health care here in Canada for over 50 years and:
1. Most people think it works well enough,
2. There are no "death tribunals" to decide if an elderly relative is worth the cost of an expensive operation; the government stays out of those decisions, and it is left entirely up to the doctors, and
3. Anyone who want to continue seeing their own family doctor does so.  My sister has two sons, and all three of them have been seeing the same family doctor since she was pregnant with her eldest son.

In a nutshell, public health care (pronounced "communism") simply isn't as bad as people have been led to believe, and I expect it was the lobbyists in Washington that work for the major medical service providers in the US that were instrumental in having the "public option" taken out of the recent legislation.

Americans are great people, and your have a great country.  But, you also have lobby groups in Washington that are pushing for what's best for their own industries more than they are for what's best for America and Americans, and that's where much of the problem is.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 23, 2010)

> And I honestly believe that if that happens it will be because of all the special interest lobby groups in Washington that are influencing the opinions of your congressmen and senators, thereby affecting the direction your country goes.



*BULLSEYE!*

Unfortunately, everyone has a price it seems.  The U.S. government has become every bit as corrupt as the third world governments we have started wars over in past years. There was a time when they tried to hide it, they don't bother to do that anymore. Next time congress goes on a witch hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction they should start their search right there in the Halls of Congress.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 23, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> *BULLSEYE!*
> 
> Next time congress goes on a witch hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction they should start their search right there in the Halls of Congress.



AMEN!

Vote em ALL out, neither one is good for our interests. Nestor, like I've said before 1st we can't afford it and 2nd if the govt controls it we are no better off under our current system (schools, Medicare-Medicaid, welfare, highways, education), gosh you have to love what the federal govt wants to have control of. I would love to have true health care reform, but the system crammed up Buds you know what doesn't make anything more affordable or provide better care.

What I find ironic is the same govt that tried and convicted Dr.Kevorkian is now allowing state funded abortion. Splain this to me Lucy?


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 23, 2010)

They stole from Social Security and broke that bank.
They robbed Medicare and broke it.
They pissed away Medicaid and it's on borrowed time.
They fumbled the USPS and it is broke.
They vote themselves the absolute best medical coverage known to man and we pay the premiums on that.
They have dumped trillions of dollars into phony wars and killed tens of thousands of young U.S. citizens, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters.

For what?

So that some greedy low-lifes can get richer than rich and so that lords of the world can cradle their gold.

Hell, we can just barely afford our health insurance now but somehow manage to pay it while on the streets every time a low budget worker gets a tooth ache he finds a way to go to jail so he can get to a dentist that is paid by the county.

Those same "workers" get free medical support and drug prescriptions at the hospitals and their babies are delivered free.  Their kids get free school lunches and transportation if they want it. But do they pay taxes on their earnings?  Damned few of them do, while I pay an additional 1% self employment tax over and above my income tax obligation.

While all this time the Wall Street bankers are cashing in on multi-million dollar bonuses and buy ocean-going yachts and have summer homes on the French Riviera.

*ARE YA FRIGGIN' KIDDIN' ME?*


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 23, 2010)

Maybe what's needed is another Boston Tea Party.

The one good thing about democracy is that it has a built in pressure relief valve called "elections".  Every 4 years you get to let off some steam by getting someone else to take the country in a different direction.  Dictatorships don't have that, and so the pressure keeps building up until you have an explosion (pronounced "revolution").  The pressure is building up inside Iran and North Korea right now.

In the 2004 election, Ron Paul ran for President, and he had a huge grass root's following of people that were just fed up with government spending.  As pressure builds, there will be other people come forward to lead your country, like Ron Paul.  It's just too bad that the only way they can get into the White House is by the previous government getting so many people so pi$$ed off.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 23, 2010)

Tn rep Bart Gordon voted against it the first time around then changed his mind. Seems he wanted to retire, now the rumor is hes up for the head of NASA. Now you see why the votes rolled around their way. I wonder what the cost of all the BRIBS were that was extended this past week? Probally more than the *Health Care Bill* total.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 23, 2010)

Oldog/Newtrick:

     One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is because your  system is a "for profit" business.  Your health insurance companies make a profit off the premiums they charge, and your pharmaceutical companies charge exhorbitant prices for the drugs they produce.  Also, your pharmaceutical companies are paying for "educational seminars" for doctors so that they can teach them about the latest drugs that have been approved by the FDA.  The fact that those educational seminars are held on board a cruise ship in the Caribean makes it pretty clear that it's little more than a bribe to get doctors to prescribe those newer and more expensive drugs for their patients rather than the cheaper generic brands.

     Here in Canada the government sets the price of all medical procedures and there are laws limiting the profits that can be made on pharmaceutical drugs made in Canada.  Also, there are legislated limits on medical malpractice law suits.  And, it's the government that builds the hospitals and supplies all the equipment.  The result is that doctors in Canada make less money than they do in the US, but they also don't have to pay exhorbitant malpractise insurance fees.

We have a "brain drain" of Canadian doctors wanting to move south where they can enjoy better weather, better pay and better working conditions, but we don't suffer from a shortage of doctors and nurses.  Lots of medical professionals want to stay in Canada for other reasons.

There's no doubt that public health care is an expensive program, but it doesn't have to be as expensive as it currently is in the US.  If your medical system wasn't the milk cow it has become, do you think the medical lobby groups in Washington would be putting up such a big fight against the "public option" that was part of the original reform proposal.  No way.  The reason why they want to kill that public option idea at all costs is because they're making huge profits now, and they know they simply couldn't compete with a publically run non-profit system.

Whether or not now is the right time to start implementing a universal health care program is another question.  You guys are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Canadian troops are also in Afghanistan) and you've just spent almost a trillion dollars on an economic stimulus package to avoid another depression.  So, maybe now isn't the right time, but I can tell you that my own personal experience with the non-profit publicly run health care system in Canada has been a good one, and I really don't see any reason why your government would make a big mess of a similar system on your side of the border.


----------



## travelover (Mar 24, 2010)

My perspective is that as long as campaigns are paid for with corporate money and members of congress have to run every two years, you will continue to get more of the same. It has been suggested that campaigns be publicly funded but no one wants to see politicians get money "for free". So instead, the corporations rip the public off big time (example: $7000 yearly per person health costs) and give a few million to the politicians and everyone is happy. 

Look at it this way, if a presidential campaign was tax payer funded, you could give each candidate $300 million to spend  at a cost of just $1 per person every 4 years. We get screwed out of that everyday before breakfast.


----------



## funetical (Mar 24, 2010)

Here's the deal of the boondoggle we managed to get ourselves in. Free market unregulated capitalism doesn't work."But fun it's worked for years"

Shut up, no it hasn't.

Capitalism in perspective of the constitution doesn't consider industrialization. With industrialization came all kinds of wonderful things. Like a need to regulate capitalism. Unchecked it runs amok raping villagers and burning there huts to the ground, but we need those people so what do we do? We regulate it.
The problem is insurance companies were allowed to exist without any real regulation in fact they managed to exist without the regulations we had in place like anti trust laws. Say what you will about socialism and communism. The reality is that those two systems aid the every man (which most of us are.). Now I want to go on record as saying I'm not socialist or communist. I am a realist. Existing in this day and age without severe reform in medicine and insurance is going to lead us all to personnel bankruptcy, and it has. What moral obligation do we have to our neighbor? None, but you have to take care of your self, and that can't happen in our current predicament. I commend and condemn the Dems on capital hill. Something had to be done. Maybe not this, but aside from regulating an industry that will refuse regulation what other alternatives do we have? It's a catch22 all the way around. The "Conservatives" with a couple of exceptions weren't doing anything, in fact they were helping to further cement the bond between Washington and insurance companies which is the greatest evil. We have horrible options before us but it's our own fault. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless it's feeding you poison and as Americans we consumed that poison with little complaint. Now that we don't like it we know no other way. Any attempt to fix this boondoggle will be met with opposition because that's what America is. Opposition. We have the right and it's about the only one all of us use.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 24, 2010)

Still lotsa pecans in Texas!


----------



## funetical (Mar 25, 2010)

You better believe it.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 25, 2010)

I dunno if you guys are getting the same information we are on this side of the border, but according to our news there have been over 10 Democrats that have asked the DC police or the FBI for protection because they have been getting death threats over the phone from people.

Apparantly, lots of people are upset enough over this health care reform that they've been threatening the people they hold responsible for it.

I think that if people are that upset about it, then maybe now isn't the right time to do it.  Still, it seems to me that threatening your local politicians isn't any way to accomplish anything, and just makes things worse.


----------



## Bud Cline (Mar 25, 2010)

> I dunno if you guys are getting the same information we are on this side of the border, but according to our news there have been over 10 Democrats that have asked the DC police or the FBI for protection because they have been getting death threats over the phone from people.


That's just the way that goes, I'm kinda surprised those numbers are so few.



> Apparantly, lots of people are upset enough over this health care reform that they've been threatening the people they hold responsible for it.


Human nature.



> I think that if people are that upset about it, then maybe now isn't the right time to do it.


Duh!  Ya think?
Seventy two percent of Americans are opposed to the bill, did that stop those belligerent bastards?



> Still, it seems to me that threatening your local politicians isn't any way to accomplish anything, and just makes things worse.


That's OK, November is just around the corner.  We'll see what happens then.
So much for a life-long career in politics for some of those guys. Polish up your resumes boys and girls, it's gonna be job hunting time pretty soon. I wonder......do ex-Senators qualify for unemployment compensation?


----------



## travelover (Mar 26, 2010)

I think that when the public realizes that all those scare stories about death panels and the government "taking over" are untrue and realizes how it benefits them, it will splash back on those spreading these stories.

We went through this same cycle when we passed women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, Social Security, and Medicare. Change is always scary and those that stand to gain from blocking change are quick to take advantage of the public's skittishness by fanning these fears.


----------



## funetical (Mar 26, 2010)

funetical said:


> America is. Opposition. We have the right and it's about the only one all of us use.





travelover said:


> We went through this same cycle when we passed women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, Social Security, and Medicare. Change is always scary and those that stand to gain from blocking change are quick to take advantage of the public's skittishness by fanning these fears.



See what I mean? If it's good, or bad it doesn't matter we stand in contrast to it. It's our nature as Americans. Freedom of speech is really freedom of opposition. If we where saying things the higher ups liked they wouldn't attempt to silence us. America was founded and resides in opposition.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 26, 2010)

Tell me what's wrong with this argument for the "public option":

All the other G8 countries in the world have some form of government run public health care, the people in those countries are happy with their health care system and it's not bankrupting their country.  Why won't your government do the same in America?

What you guys need first and foremost is clean up Washington so the lobbyists aren't running the country anymore, and the politicians actually represent the people again.

And the baby squabbles between Republicans and Democrats on purely partisan grounds isn't helping either.  Both should be working to do what's best for America, and not just doing whatever they can to annoy each other.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Mar 26, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Tell me what's wrong with this argument for the "public option":
> 
> All the other G8 countries in the world have some form of government run public health care, the people in those countries are happy with their health care system and it's not bankrupting their country.  Why won't your government do the same in America?
> 
> ...



Nestor, we don't want to be like the socialized European Nations. Some of us still believe that the American Spirit is risk and reward. Washington is trying to socialize our economy and set up entitlements. Its great if other nations want this type of system, but this nation was founded on freedom from what they are cramming down our throats right now. Its not about health care reform, cause this bill is not a reform bill, its an entitlement bill designed to maintain control. 

You are right about cleaning up the cesspool in Washington, Dem's and Repubs are both to blame. Special interest are not the best interests of our Nation.


----------



## funetical (Mar 26, 2010)

If your so tired of politicians what do you do to rid yourselves of them? Elect more? 
Nestor the public option is unpopular because it leaves the middle class paying for everything. To broke to buy out. America ask to much of it's middle class, but as a Canadian I'm sure you know what that's like.


----------



## travelover (Mar 26, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Tell me what's wrong with this argument for the "public option":...................



The public option cuts out the middle man - that is the insurance companies. They make a tremendous amount of money now and have an army of lobbyists in Washington and many, if not most, members of congress on their payroll. Who do you think pays for all the scare ads about killing grandma and creeping socialism? Another major foe is the hospital systems themselves, who negotiate rates with individual insurers. The government drives a hard bargain (reference Medicare reimbursement rates) and hospitals know that their profits will be nicked.

Interestingly, when you add up Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Administration Hospitals and government employee's health care, most of the health care delivered in the US is already via a "public option".


----------



## travelover (Mar 26, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> ..............What you guys need first and foremost is clean up Washington so the lobbyists aren't running the country anymore, and the politicians actually represent the people again..................



Reread post #21 . Ironically, corporations have so much control now, they can send a lynch mob against anyone that opposes them by manipulating highly emotional topics like abortion, socialism, racism, social class competition, immigration, etc.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Mar 26, 2010)

funetical said:


> Nestor the public option is unpopular because it leaves the middle class paying for everything.



That's the problem with having that word "option" in there.  The very wealthy opt out of the program because they can well afford the medical insurance.

That's why all the other G8 countries have a public health care system, not a "public option".


----------



## funetical (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't disagree with writing it out, the problem is though the rich run our nation. The politicians will inevitably opt out themselves after they live in their victory a bit longer. Same as it ever was.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Apr 28, 2010)

Brentcamden said:


> Health is important for every body. So government has to provide good facility for people's health.



Well heres where we disagree, because what ever the govt is providing me they are taking the money out of YOUR pocket to fund it. How do you like paying for my free health care.

 I don't want the govt to provide me with anything but national security, they have shown that whatever they get their hands on they will mismanage.

And where does it state in the constitution that the purpose of govt is to be the provider of all things....


----------



## SJNServices (Apr 28, 2010)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the biggest reason insurance is so expensive is because of these wonderful government "regulations" that _require_ you to have it. If you were not required to have it, and if you could purchase it from the insurance company of your choice anywhere, would the insurance companies not have to make themselves price competitive to attract business, in order to stay in business?

As to the Constitution, if strictly read and interpreted the government should really just be there to guard our borders and fill potholes. In other words, stay the f*** out of my bank account!

I think that if government would really lay off taxing the crap out of everyone, including the wealthy, a lot more people would have money to fix up or build homes. Therefore, we would have a lot more to do and a lot more money (to be taxed). I'll get off my soapbox now. :beer:


----------



## funetical (Apr 28, 2010)

oldog/newtrick said:


> Well heres where we disagree, because what ever the govt is providing me they are taking the money out of YOUR pocket to fund it. How do you like paying for my free health care.
> 
> I don't want the govt to provide me with anything but national security, they have shown that whatever they get their hands on they will mismanage.
> 
> And where does it state in the constitution that the purpose of govt is to be the provider of all things....



It doesn't and you're right on that. The issue though is it also used to not provide regulations about slavery. That being said, maybe the constitution is not an all inclusive doctrine of the regulations of government, but a guide to the times. I think the thing that I found most disheartening is that the main reason health care is so expensive has less to do with government intervention and more to do with people not paying their bills. How do you deny a life saving operation to some one who can't afford it? You don't. The unfortunate truth is that everyone is entitled to not die from preventable circumstance, but then that brings on debt. So what do you do? Allow the debt to remain unpaid and drive up the cost of current medicine to make it up, or do you ensure it gets paid in order to keep the cost from building up and bankrupting an industry that is indispensable? If current health cost continue to rise due to unpaid bills it's going to come out of the pocket of the middle class. In way of more expensive operations, higher prices for medication, and less coverage when you do have a claim. The solution is as difficult as the problem.The reality though is this affects us all and when it does it becomes the responsibility of the federal government to handle it. The middle class is going to pay for it any ways. Why not get everyone else involved?


----------

