The embedded video might be the most convincing argument I've seen regarding a public option.
Yes, it's anecdotal.
Yes, it over simplifies the issues.
Since I have no time to fact check it, I'll assume for the moment that the facts stated are generally true. That being the case, the conclusions do make sense.
Whats missing from his argument about Hank, is that if Hank was poor and on Medicaid, and was showing no signs of improvement (or got colon cancer)- he would probably lose the Medicaid benefits as well, placed in a state run facility and basically given just enough drugs to help him die from the disease painlessly.
Other than that- Good argument. Partnershiping between both a private and public option makes a lot of sense.
Well, what's missing from YOUR anecdote is MY anecdote regarding my little brother. Since he turned 18 he has no health insurance. About 10 days ago he was hit by a car. He's OK except that he broke his arm in such a way that he needs minor surgery to reattach the bones. The accident is still under investigation and it's unclear whether the woman who hit him is at fault. So there's no insurance money yet and he can't get the surgery because it costs several thousand dollars, which of course he doesn't have. If I had the means, I'd just pay for his surgery. But times being what they are, it's difficult for me just to come up with rent and pay for my own insurance.
If there was UHC (Not Obama care, because Obama care, while a step in the right direction, is too much of a compromise, IMO.) he could just get the surgery and the hospital/government could work it out with the woman's insurance company later. Instead he has to wait, while his arm is in pain and his bones start to grow back deformed.
To me, that's what our health care system is. It's a country club with a membership fee that 20% of Americans can't afford and it's just plain wrong. I get that a government run system will have flaws, but there's a lot of people who would be willing to put up with those flaws, because a flawed system is better than no system at all.
Wow Mevin that sucks. Is there anyway he is can get state aid?
I'd like pharmaceutical company care. When I was in the drug study for the asthma drug Advair, I got the best medical care of my life. It was good to be a lab rat, seriously. They gave me my own nebulizer, my own electronic peak flow meter, got immediate care and meds when I got sick and got a thousand bucks on top of that. They were so nice to me too, I was like why can't all medical care be like this?
Well without lab rats like you the drug companies couldn't sell their wares at exorbitant prices. They treat people like kings and queens as long as they're useful.
As far as my little brother goes, I talked to him yesterday and he's getting the surgery after all. I'm not sure how they're paying for it, cause I didn't ask. But I'm gonna see him tonight so I'll ask him then. But he's not the most reliable source of information, so he might not even really know where the money's coming from. But since it was already delayed by more than a week, my guess is the driver's insurance company decided to pay up.
I know that Mevin, but this drug actually saved me a lot of grief and hospital visits and gave me back my life. Still, it is really the kind of care everyone deserves, lab rat or not.
So glad he is getting treatment, I was worried and I don't even know him!
My mental jury is still out on UHC (like the idea, wrestling with implementation), but I would like to 2nd FG's comments on how well "lab rats" are treated. I'm not sure I've ever shared this around here, but drug studies are my only source of treatment for depression and most of the time, that care is astronomically better than when I had treatment through health insurance. I too wish that kind of care could be universally applied.
Oh, and I love the Green Brothers. Makes me wish my sister and I were like that.
What's also missing is the fact that this guys not being on the up and up. In most states there is no 'requirement' for companies to provide health insurance. Companies do it as a "benefit" - notice the word benefit i.e. advantage, to attract well-qualified candidates to their business.
My company, a small business employing less than 50 people, could cancel our health insurance BENEFIT right now and there would be no punishment. Currently our company only pays for 50% of the premium, but at any time, could change that to 0% - or 100%.
So, a big chunk of his argument is based on a flawed premise. Furthermore, even if it was a requirement for a large company to offer coverage there's no law stating that it has to be quality coverage. Hell, even coverage with a $100,000 deductible would still be coverage.
Yea I don't know where he gets the "required" thing from? The lies from the left are just as bad, or worse than the lies from the right.
But the thing is, Smirk, your company's situation perfectly illustrates why UHC is needed. Your company can probably barely afford to pay half the premiums. Why, because the cost has been outpacing inflation, by 3 fold, for the last 30 years. So it's almost a mathematical certainly that at sometime in the future your organization won't be able to offer medical coverage at all.
I'll be the first to admit, that I think Obama's plan is a half measure, that's essentially another give-away to the health care industry. But it's not an option to do nothing. It's not OK to put our heads in the sand and pretend we're not on a collision course. I would just like the conservatives and liberals to sit down and admit we have a huge problem and then go from there. Instead we have retarded shouting matches and outright lies and it's getting us nowhere.
In the 10 years I've been the administrator of our small group plan I've watched the premiums nearly double. But I know for a fact that the doubling of that premium is not going into the "record profits" of the insurance company. They are paying bills, big bills. The costs the companies are paying to hospitals, Drs, pharmacies, has also gone up.
None of that is being addressed at all. Which is why I found $8 post in the other thread so interesting... That he finds the four hours of work done by the spinal surgeon to be worth the thousands upon thousands of dollars it cost - and to put these trained professionals into the company of school teachers (not to diss school teachers at all - but spinal surgery is in a different league) and say you're only going to get paid what the government chooses to pay you is going to have a very negative effect on the quality of care and the quality of people who choose to enter the profession.
You're right. There is intelligent and valid debate to be had here - but it ain't happening in this country, at this time.
Well I've said many times before that this is not (or shouldn't be) just an insurance debate. This is clearly a multi-faceted problem, that will only be solved with a multi-tiered approach. I actually blame doctors and hospitals more than the insurance providers, but I also think medical mal-practice is completely out of control. I think there needs to be tort reform across the board. No other country in the world has punitive damages even close to the amounts that we award.
But I take issue with the idea that Neurosurgeons deserve what they're paid. (not sure if that's what you're saying or not?) They certainly deserve more than most people, but they average around 400K/yr. That's about 10 times what your average school teacher makes. Is a neurosurgeon really THAT much more important than someone in charge of shaping the minds of tomorrow?
I think, objectively speaking, its money that was better spent than say the 20 million dollars Americans paid Will Ferrell to be entertained by his role Talladega Nights.
While I think that both jobs are very important. The fact of the matter is, that the average neurosurgeon (on paper at least) could easily qualify to be a teacher, but that teacher could not walk into a hospital and perform surgery. So the neurosurgeon possesses training, skills, and experience that are not easily substituted. A bad teacher rarely causes a person to die.
I can't understand blaming doctors and hospitals first. Many hospitals are run by non profits, and most doctors spent years living as slave interns eating ramen noodles. These people (in general) are very dedicated to helping people. The process is designed to weed out the greedy and stupid. Yes, there are bad examples of doctors and hospitals doing shameless crap to make a buck, but I'd guess for every bad one there are dozens of good ones who are there to help people. I don't begrudge anyone who possesses rare skills and training and who has to deal with the stress of making life or death decisions for people for making a lot of money.
I know a lot of doctors (since my wife is a nurse). Most of them are oncologists. They all make a LOT of money by my standards. But I say they are ALL underpaid. They work endlessly trying to save lives, and they watch people they care about die and are unable to cure them. That's a burden I could not carry.
Consider this: the NFL League Minimum Salaries.
The minimum salary structure for 2007 is as follows:
Rookies and first-year players $285,000
Second-year players $360,000
Third-year $435,000
Fourth-year $510,000
Fifth- through seventh-year $595,000
Eighth- through tenth-year $720,000
Eleventh-year and longer $820,000
