Last updated on 2013.05.10
Mitt Romney, Kristi Noem, and Gordon Howie will tell you, with varying degrees of passion, consistency, and sanity, that socialized medicine is bad. It's actually better than our ugly, inefficient private system.
But hey, Republicans, are you serious about fighting socialized medicine? Then quit fighting for the VA hospital in Hot Springs and accept Uwe E. Reinhardt's dare:
Occasionally one does come across an American politician who mutters something about privatizing the V.A. health system. I doubt this idea would have much political traction, either as part of a party's platform or in the presidential candidates' campaign repertoire.
In fact, I would dare presidential candidates professing a distaste for socialized medicine to call openly for abolition of the V.A. health system in favor of a purely privatized system — e.g., a defined contribution system such as that advocated for Medicare by Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee [Uwe E. Reinhardt, "Where 'Socialized Medicine' Has a U.S. Foothold," New York Times: Economix, 2012.08.03].
Note Reinhardt's reminder that Paul Ryan and Kristi Noem both support privatizing Medicare... a destructive plan that Kristi Noem has dodgingly supported since her 2010 campaign.
Reinhardt is challenging the presidential candidates, but I'd be happy to hear our Congressional and Legislative candidates speak with some intellectual integrity as well. If you hate socialized medicine (Kristi, Stace, Russell, Ernie...), then call for the closing of the Veterans Health Administration.
i confess to wondering why the VA and IHS have not merged: any thoughts, all?
http://www.siouxfalls.va.gov/features/VA_and_Indian_Health.asp
You are comparing apples to oranges; however, I will take a bite and a wedge. The argument with the VA is that they specialize in complicated medical issues that most civilian facilities are inexperienced with and thus cannot be replaced without doing a grave disservice to veterans. There is merit to that argument. There are not too many civilian doctors experienced to deal with the unique type of injuries our veterans have suffered or trained to deal with the related compound trauma & seperation issues.
The VA is also a perfect example of why I oppose socialized medicine. While the medical treatment I have received with the VA has been great, the administrative nightmare, that is the other massive side of the VA, is the part that we should all fear. Rationing of care does occur and getting appointments is difficult.
Rationing of care happens in private medicine as well.
The decision is made by your insurance company.
Dear Stace, the point to many of us is that, while the administrative side of the VA may be a nightmare, at least you received care, and did not have to figure out whether you could afford to go to the doctor or pay the rent/mortgage. There's no doubt that, as a veteran, you will receive treatment - perhaps not as quickly as you'd like (although they do hustle when it comes to heart attacks or strokes!). In the private sector, there are a lot of people who only see a doctor in the emergency room, which increases the costs for all of us.
Plus the administrative side in the private sector (private health insurance) is pretty bad as well, which is why, for example, Interlakes Medical here in Madison employs people who do nothing but deal with the insurance companies. And why I spend quite a bit of time on the telephone with my insurance company (Dakotacare) every year trying to sort out what they will/won't cover (it changes every year), and how much of my deductible I have left to pay before insurance kicks in.
There is no perfect world, but, having lived without insurance for over 20 years (I lived in the South, and no employer provided health insurance, and I could not afford private health insurance), and now having had private insurance for 20 years, I believe in socialized medicine. I do not believe that access to basic medical care should depend on the size of your wallet, which is the state of affairs today. I do not believe that you should have to go bankrupt because you or your family member got cancer, ALS, or other catastrophic illnesses. (In 2009, 62% of all personal bankruptcies were for medical reasons, and of those, 78% had insurance:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm)
What else in new under the sun of politics? Hypocrisy is why I left the GOP along time ago and I will never join the Democrats. That's why I'm happy being me and independent :)
Larry,
I agree with you, the framework for government health care already exists within the military, VA, IHS, Medicare and Medicaid. Would like to see someone take a hard look at this because probably a large portion of Americans already recieve care thru one of these programs.
@Eve Realize that not all veterans are cared for by the VA. Actually, a very small percent are taken care of there. Those that receive care there have paid a very high cost in order to rate that care. My experience has been so bad with the VA that I do not trust them enough to drop the expensive coverage I pay for with Blue Cross & Blue Shield.
"I do not believe that access to basic medical care should depend on the size of your wallet, which is the state of affairs today." I do not believe that either. I also do not believe though that the government should be able to make you purchase something you don't want.
There are plenty people in the USA who have chosen not to pay the costs of having health insurance.
We need to fix the problems in our medical industry, to include the massive fraud and civil law suits. What we don't need is more government run anything.
"There are plenty people in the USA who have chosen not to pay the costs of having health insurance. " Yes, and by not choosing for themselves, they choose - deliberately or not - for the rest of us to pay for them. In the same way that people who choose to not vaccinate their children choose - deliberately or not - (1) to depend on the medical system to save those children when they get ill (and I think it would be an interesting study to see the percentage of them who don't have health insurance) and (2) to put the rest of the population at risk.
I'm sorry, but I think there are some things that government does extremely well: it provides the infrastructure, military defense, legal defense, arbitration, and guarantees of our civil liberties that no private individual or corporation can. Without government, blacks would still be subject to Jim Crow laws in the south; without government, the Hoover Dam would never have been built, nor the TVA electric system, nor would we have a space program, nor the CDC. As I've said before, I agree with former Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "I like paying taxes; with them I buy civilization."
"I also do not believe though that the government should be able to make you purchase something you don’t want."
How do you feel about state government requiring you to buy automobile insurance?
My Dad got great care at the VA till Clinton started talking about national health care. Suddenly the VA wouldn't help you if you were a vet but only if you were a registered vet. They started not doing certain services and proceedures and had to ship you to Seattle for them. They were run very efficiently and full coverage. But when people started thinking that the government could do health care someone sabotaged that system so it would appear government is bad.
ps when you are in the legislature S. Nelson, you can make government do it right better than most of us can.
@Eve apples and oranges with health & car insurance.
@Roger The best people that make the government do what it is supposed to do, is an electorate educated on what the government is up to. If the folks decide to send me back, I will continue to do the best I can.
Ya know Mr Nelson, I used to be very opposed to government sponsored health care for everyone.
Guess it goes back to the old brown shoe NCO's who preached at me everyday to take care of our own. At that time it included only, in my mind and theirs, those of us who wore a uniform.The longer I have been in this sometimes confusing world of civilians, the more and more I have realized that taking care of our own should be inclusive and not exclusive. We are them.
If you had a Marine, whose life you were responsible for and that Marine hated your ass, unwilling to leave a building that you knew was going to blow up, what would you do, leave him there or punch him up along side his head and drag him out? You, unless I have misjudged your character, would have punched him in his face and drug him out. You would do it today. If Justin was in your office, you looked up and saw a bomb whose timer said 30 seconds and he laughed at you and wouldn't leave you would punch him in the face(probably taking pleasure in it) and drag him out.
That is kind of situation we are in today with health care. I don't know what the solution is, those decisions are well above my pay grade, but something has to be done other than saying prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
As education is necessary to keep this nation strong and safe so is a healthy population. 75% of Americans age eligible, are either medically unfit, lacking educational requirements, or have criminal pasts
that would prevent them from serving in the defense of this country. The Department of Defense has stated that the health issue is rapiedly becoming a national security issue.
You are now in a position above my pay grade. Is all I am asking is that you work to help find a solution to the health care issue. I don't need to like it and you don't need to like it,(we both have done things we did not like to do but had to because it was necessary) it just needs to be something that insures that all South Dakotan's have an opportunity for inexpensive health care.
If folks think the VA is a bureaucratic nightmare, they need to experience Sanford Health. Or the wonderful experience of carrying Avera insurance and having a
Sanford-associated physician.
I am presently visiting my home area where there were three hospitals at one time--a Lutheran, a Catholic, and a public. They have merged into one with one main campus and one satellite. People who need emergency treatment are often transported to a different facility than the one they reported to. And a person who came in with heart symptoms around 10 p.m. received attention at 4 a.m. and a diagnosis at 9. (Turned out to be pneumonia.)
Point is that there is one area in which private interests clearly outdo government services: in creating impenetrable, often surly, and inefficient bureaucracies. But then I do not live in a world shaped by the political dogma about who bears all the blame for the ills of the world. For some reason, I keep bumping up against reality.
@Joe Can say I never had any that hated me. But you are correct on something so simple (I am not agreeing that I would punch poor Justin nor admiting that I would in anyway enjoy it).
Sadly, this issue is not so simple. You make solid points and I agree with you in part. Being free comes with responsability. I do not want to have the government deciding what is and what is not in our individual best interests. They would surely take away the occasional Busch Lights that I enjoy, steak, eggs, etc., etc.
Remember we started the federal Dept of Energy & Education to fix all our education and energy problems. They did not fix those problems but added to the massive debt our country is threatened with.
I think that we can improve our current system without a government take over.
I agree with your last comment. The fact that costs have surged, and continue to rise like a rocket though, under Obamacare, indicates it is clearly not the answer.
Thats all I am asking Stace, if the South Dakota Legislature has a better idea than the Affordable Health Care Act, let's try to get something enacted. I am not a great fan of the AHCA because it mandates I purchase something. Think it is a terrible precedent.
Eve,
before you start on me, if I decide not to purchase auto insurance I can't legally drive, so if I decline health insurance I should be prohibited from receiving legal health care. That's apples to apples. Truly miss talking with you on a daily basis.
Stace said "I think that we can improve our current system without a government take over." Ok then Stace let us read your plan or at least your ideas. You are a Representative and what could possibly be a more important issue facing the citizens of South Dakota?
@Barry You would think such a major issue would rate a summer study at least? There has been plenty enacting of Obamacare all the while claiming we were fighting it.
First, repeal 2011's SB 38 & 43. Then seat a panel of experts across the state that are outspoken in their OPPOSSITION to Obamacare. Take a look at avery facet of what is driving costs and address those issues here in SD at the state level that we can.
Justin said
Rationing of care happens in private medicine as well.
The decision is made by your insurance company.
give an example
Thanks Stace . The summer study would be a great idea and probably should have been done in at least one of the last 20 summers. The panel of experts to look at every facet of what is driving up costs is another great idea. I do have a problem with cherry picking the experts depending on where they stand on the issue though. that is just a little to much "Soviet Union" for my taste. :-)
I just hear a lot from Republicans about what they dont think will work and not much about what they do think will work. It is kinda like taking the kid to dairy queen and asking what flavor ice cream they want and all you get is " All I know is I dont want strawberry"- Just not very helpful.
Joe, the problem with saying, well, if you don't buy health insurance, you should be prohibited from getting health care is that (1) in a caring society we don't do that - for example, no one asked the victims in the Aurora, CO shooting if they had insurance before taking them to the hospital - and (2) what about the children of the uninsured? Suddenly 3 year olds die because their parents didn't buy private health insurance? I don't think so.
The problems with the accounting argument of health care is that
(1) we all want the people we love to stay alive and healthy;
(2) catastrophes happen, even to honest, upright, sober citizens (cancer, ALS, automobile accidents), which (unless they're millionaires) they cannot afford without insurance of some kind;
(3) insurance companies do indeed play games - one of the major benefits of the ACA is that they can no longer deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions, which is important. (Live long enough, and we all have at least one pre-existing condition.)
(4) in times of emergency, you don't ask what care is the cheapest; when my husband Allan had his heart attack and they wanted to airlift him to Sioux Falls, I didn't ask "wouldn't it be cheaper if I drove him down?" I wanted him to live, and he was dying;
(5) we will all be facing emergencies at some point. Sooner or later, we will all be lying in that emergency room, gasping for breath, needing health care that we cannot, right then (perhaps ever) write a check for.
Right now we have a system where we already pay for everyone who doesn't have health insurance but shows up in the emergency room anyway. This is part of the reason hospital costs are so high, because they're spreading those costs out among those of us who have insurance. Basically, I recognize that it would be much cheaper to spread out the costs among all of us from the beginning via some form of socialized medicine (I prefer a single-payer health plan that caps expenses). Not to mention the relief of mind that comes knowing you can receive health care when you need it would probably lower costs related to stress and depression right away. That is what veterans, federal employees, Congress, receive right now.
And, by the way, Mr. Nelson, just a hint for upcoming campaigns: complaining because you get excellent health care - even with administrative tangles - when there are so many South Dakotans who are basically whistling for it is rather like complaining about how bad the billing was for an excellent steak dinner to people who are living on ramen noodles.
Joe, I miss talking to you, too. Hope to run into you around town some time.
@Tim
Any time your insurance refuses to pay for something they are rationing your care. You have never heard of people dying because their insurance refuses to pay for a procedure? It happens ALL THE TIME. Almost no insurance today will cover most pharmaceuticals that are under patent, there is another example.
And re Sanford/avera, I totally agree they are disasters. Specialist appointments take 2-3 months and cost a fortune with poor service. Everybody complained about Canada when we started this discussion. Our waits are just as long and our cost is drastically more.
@Stace. Stick to threatening politicians.
Where are you going to find a panel of experts in SD that oppose ACA? Both Avera and Sanford support it. And furthermore, how is that a legitimate study? That's how think tanks work. Go see what the Heritage Foundation thinks, that's what you get when you have a group of people doing a "study" where the conclusions are written before the the rest of the study.
Gonna have to defend Avera, based on my personal expierience. Couple of years ago went to the local clinic,
my doctor thought is was nothing at all, just something that had happen. On the way out of his office he said, "you know, if you don't care why don't we do a blood test." He called back the next day and wanted me to redo the blood test, I did. He called the next day and told be I had appointment with a kidney doctor at Avera that afternoon. Saw the kidney doctor, he looked at the test results and didn't think there was any thing to be concerned with but decided to run one test. Went back down two days later and he told me I had an appointment with the ocnocologist and was to go see him right now. It was 5:15pm. About 10 days later(includes a week end) he told me that I had a blood cancer. Started treatment that day. The doctor or his nurse called me almost every day (on the weeks I was not having treatments) for probably the next two months.
Never had a billing problem, if we had a question we called and the billing people were more than help full. Filed all my claims for me, including my AFLAC insurance and did so with a smiling face. May be it's attitude but I have never had a problem from diagnosis to today recovering from a stem cell transplant. When I felt I needed them they were there with a smiling face and a helpful attitude. Can't speak for Sanford cause I have never used them.
Maybe that's the difference, I'm a Sanford patient. I love my GP, but the referrals to only Sanford specialists is useless. So are many of their specialists. If I got a serious illness I would not continue to doctor there, I would be driving to Rochester as often as necessary.
@Barry Those opposed should put up or shut up. Not opposed to others at the table; however, I see enough sabatoging of bills in Pierre to know that sometimes it is counterproductive to have those interested in seeing something die, deciding the life of the venture.
@Eve I am sorry my limited post does not convey the extent of the issues with the VA. Trying to describe it to someone who does not have to deal with it is like describing an elephant to a blind man. Your comment about veterans at the end shows you do NOT understand that ALL veterans are NOT taken care of at the VA. There is a very finite few who are. The VA is not the model case for government controlled healthcare that you think it is.
Stace, you are making sense here, unlike the post on the War College about Varilek not having any ideas. (Has PP lost his touch? Or did we underestimate his capacity for taking cheap shots?) It's time to stop throwing spitballs and get to work.
Justin,
In regards to Sanford and Avera, one has to approach each clinic in town, and each specialist referal, as a seperate piece of the whole puzzle. I cannot speak to your experiences with either Hospital. I can speak to mine; I loved the treatment we received with my wife's pregnancy at Sanford. I also thought Avera did well on her previous one. However Avera Queen of Peace is a disaster in treating my sister in law's cancer. With so many different administrators, managers, etc., it will take years for the hospitals to appraoch Mayo status, though I do not think it a stretch at all to see Sanford reach that in the future.
You folks are offering a lot of good comments here, comparing experiences at different hospitals. I wonder: from all of your experiences, can we distinguish between quality of medical care and quality of insurance/payment processes? Hospitals are large organizations, and they will offer bureaucracy in any system, public or private. But with socialized coverage, as offered by Canadian-style single-payer and to some extent Medicare, the payment process is at least simplified, isn't it?
I don't find the payment process that daunting. They do take care of all that filing and even getting pre-approval from your insurance company for exceptions.
I will say that it is a very bad idea to utilize the insurance plans provided by either Avera or Sanford. How can you expect to have your insurance company effectively negotiate with your medical provider when they are the same entity and functionally eliminate your ability to spend your health care dollars at another facility?
The argument about rationed care is mute because you have rationed care now. My wife in a year has to switch cancer doctors through no fault of her own. she won’t have prvilagizes anymore with Sanford.
My wife had her gall bladder out 2 years ago and breast cancer surgery last year. The bill on the gall bladder was $18,000, but she had Sanford Insurance and the bill was then cut in half to $9,000. Huh?
She had some work done on her veins this year and she was told that there were 3 different prices depending upon if she had insurance (cheapest if she didn’t) and what kind of insurance she had. Shouldn’t the procedure cost the same no matter what??
Back to the cancer her total bill before insurance was over $105,000. What if we didn’t have insurance? Was she supposed to die?
The Republicans want to start healthcare reform with tort reform. While I agree that we have to have reform should we start by protecting the doctors or the people who can least afford it? Republicans say the doctors.
This all started when we made healthcare for profit in the 80′s. That never should have happened.
It’s the President who has put a plan out there and it’s helping people. Stace, besides tort reform how do the Republicans-mainly the far right want to fix things? I’m asking because because all of seen from the Republicans is are anti-affordable healthcare act. No plan.
The final question I’ll ask all of you is healthcare a right in this country or
Listen to this Owen: I was prescribed a patented medication so my insurance's policy is not to approve it. Bear in mind I have a policy where I pay everything up to a high deductible and they pay 100% over the deductible. I went to Walgreens to just pay for the prescription. They told me it would be $220 a month, with my Walgreens prescription card that is supposed to give me the best deal they have. I asked if I checked WalMart if it would be the same price and he said nobody will have a lower price. The next day I get an email that says my prescription has been filled, meaning I got approval for the exception. I went up to pick up the medicine, and without my insurance paying anything, what was the price? $52.
Tell me how that can be and how anybody in America can get fair pricing for medical treatment without an insurance plan?
Since I said it earlier, I obviously also recognize we have rationing of medical care. But I failed to mention the biggest way we ration care which may play into your situation: denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. If you have healthcare through your employer, unless you want to keep your current job your entire life, the next insurance company to cover you won't cover your ailments. Eliminating this shameful practice that allows insurance companies to ration care for the population's most serious conditions is the crowning achievement of ACA.
Cory- With the present system the simplest payment process is for the emergency patient who falls below the poverty line and is not eligible for medicaid. That process consists of an interview and the filling out of one form followed in several weeks by a letter forgiving all costs.The hospitals give the same excellent care that they give to any paying patient but only enough to stabilize the emergency but the doctors are free to make decisions without considering what the insurance company will allow. It makes more sense for the hospital to forgive the bill and write off the cost than it does to try to collect on something that they will never get. They just pass on the cost to patients with insurance who have to deal with their insurance company to decide what care they get.
Barry, but your forgot the most important part: almost all patients need to declare bankruptcy in order to get that treatment.
Justin Not true anymore- the hospitals will forgive based upon income - no bankruptcy required . It is quite a system we have here.
wow Justin. I bet a lot of people have horror stories.
Again-Do we have a right to healthcare in this country?
Simple question
@Barry That's an interesting new development, but certainly not indicative of the rest of the country. If it is income based, why don't these people qualify for Medicaid?
@Owen I don't think I would phrase it as a "right" to medical care. I think we have a responsibility to make sure the citizens are getting a reasonable deal on the biggest expense we have and the most important asset we have: our own lives. To the extent the government represents those citizens (haha with Citizens United and the Walton family having more wealth than the bottom 40% combined) and we have a living Constitution, our legislatures have a responsibility to their constituents to pass legislation that protects us from the special interests that have given us the most expensive medical care in the developed world with mediocre results. The best way to do this is to have a single payer that uses our collective power to negotiate against the doctor's union (AMA) and big pharmaceutical companies that are granted these ridiculous patents no place else in the developed world. But ACA doesn't even tackle that issue, instead it creates a group of for profit private insurers with not only much higher cost ratios than a single payer would have, but also divert "profits" that make the actual cost ratio to citizens even higher.
ACA isn't a cure all in that respect, but at least it tackles two of our biggest issues: a) Rationing of health care for pre-existing conditions and b) the gross inefficiency of treating the lower end of the spectrum with the ER/Bankruptcy model.
Justin a person is not eligible for Medicaid unless they are a child , a woman with underage children , disabled or over 65. That leaves a large segment of working poor not eligible.
Wow, I guess I also thought it was also for the severely impoverished. I guess I have never applied.
So much for our "socialist welfare state".
I did have the flu once last year and I called the free clinic in town which must be funded by some other program. They told me I could get in in 60 days. Needless to say, I paid up to go to my regular Sanford doc. I will say that if you don't have insurance and pay cash, Sanford doesn't screw you like the pharmacies do. If I pay cash upfront I actually pay less for an office call than I do waiting a month for my insurance to pay 5% (in turn losing the 10% discount Sanford offers).
It took me seven years to get in the V.A when they told we would be cover you have to just about have a disability to get in or priority 8 wnot making much money
I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me how TriCare actually works. Can you go to a regular hospital, and if so why would you go to the VA? Is it 100% free?
TriCare is for people currently in, or retired from. VA is for those who served but did not retire with full benefits.
Mr. Nelson, I am well aware that not all veterans are covered by VA. My point was that you are, that you received - per your own words - great medical care, and then you complained about the administrative tangle. I would suggest you show more appreciation for what you receive is, considering that so many of your constituents get minimal health care for high prices and even worse administrative tangles. I also agree with what so many people have said here on this post (and elsewhere): the Republicans oppose the ACA and that's it. Where is their plan? where is your plan? Why should I or anyone else vote for someone to take away something that at least provides protection against the insurance companies nailing us for pre-existing conditions when there is no replacement but the same-old, same-old. Which isn't working, unless you're wealthy enough not to worry about things like pre-existing conditions, $5,000 deductibles, etc. I know I'm tired of hearing anti-what's out there rants without any solutions being offered. Only "trust us, we'll come up with something" or "I have a secret plan." Well, I've heard the "secret plan" rap for 40 years of voting, and what that's always turned out to be is "Vote for me and I'll do what I want." Tell me the plan first.
@Eve You may want to couch your words in a different fashion to veterans who receive medical care at the VA. We have nothing we should be appreciative about, except to the Good Lord. The healthcare we receive there is because we were injured while serving this country. In exchange for that dedication, we get pain & suffering for the rest of our shortend lives, and we go through years of headaches of dealing with a VA system designed o deny veterans assistance. Because it is so unreliable, I maintain my reliable expensive Blue Cross & Blue Shield coverage for my family and myself. Of interest, the VA loves to bill my private insurance when they do happen to treat me even for service connected injuries!
I never said I recieve excellent health care from the VA, my compliments were out of respect for the medical personnel who appear to do their level best for veterans at the hospital. The VA itself is a an administrative monster that goes out of its way to prevent veterans from getting the assistance they earned. As usual, what do I know. You want the VA as your model government healthcare? Who am I to warn otherwise.
See comments above to the rest of your question.
Oh, I think veterans deserve medical care, and college assistance, and home loans. I realize that they earned it, and I have no problem with that. What I also realize is that just because someone earned health care, or a pension, or a raise, means nothing in today's economic climate, where firefighters and policemen - government employees who also put their lives on the line for this country every day - are seen as targets for cuts by Republican lawmakers and politicians who want to balance their budgets the easy way. If you don't appreciate what you have, and are ready to fight for it, it's easy to lose it quickly.
Right now there's a lot of talk about "respect a vet" and "thank a vet" - but the truth is that veterans' benefits are as tenuous as any other government employee's. Once Henry VIII figured out how much money was in the monasteries, he looted them all. Once this current crop of politicians figures out how much money is in ALL government employees benefits and pensions... Well, what will happen is what's happened all over the private sector. "Thanks for your work; you're on you're own. Rights? What rights? You got paid, what more do you want? Quit milking the system."
Eve, It has already started to happen
I know, Joe. I'm just not sure that the "drown the government in the bathtub" people realize their drowning their own puppies in the process.
The VA dishonors vets by refusing the weakest of those before a diagnosis or before diagnosis gets traction.
I have a great friend who was a nurse in WW2. She could not get in to Ft Meade and ended up in a hospital at home getting cut, burned and poisoned as they removed breast, bone and other cancerous tissue. They then sent her home to die. I stopped to see how she was doing and imediately got after the VA in Sturgis. Within a week they understood this lady might be weak but she had someone who cared enough to raise cain and allowed her to come for treatment.
As to the complaints of no care for the poor in our private care system, my brother and a customer of mine both got a prostate cancer diag at the same time. Brother had the best ins and customer had none. Customer with a PSA 4 times higher than brother went to Bismarck ND for treatment and brother went to Oklahoma for the latest treatment only available in a couple of places in the US.
Both are alive and brother wishes he had the treatment the customer got because of long term effects. Customer is not bankrupt, still has his truck and makes a monthly payment of less than my monthly Blue Cross.
My wife has yet to see a patient get turned down for having no resource to pay.
I'm thinking that if I dropped my health insurance I could potentially lose my business's. So it is not about the poor losing out here. It is about anyone who has something to lose on a large enough scale to make it worth going after.
I realize I have given no answers to our medical industry problems, however it cannot continue to be a few who pay for all.
I don't understand how you can complain that the VA doesn't do enough but that the few can't pay for all.
ACA requires people to pay for insurance. The VA is not paid for at all by recipients as I understand (or more accurately it is paid for in service not in cash).
We pay for the poor's healthcare at the ER through our current premiums anyway.
The few paying the vets way doesn't bother me in the least Justin. It is two completely different issues.
We now pay the poor's healthcare through ER as you stated. So how is requiring someone to pay that cannot, going to improve our system with the addition of a huge bureacucracy sucking dollars.
I will gladly drop my family off Blue Cross for a $2500 penalty and be $10K ahead of the game. We have not used our insurance and you can pay my way Justin. ;-)
There will be nobody that can't pay because they will all have insurance.
As for the comment about the huge bureaucracy sucking dollars, I agree. It should be a single payer system administrated by the government which would vastly reduce the costs of insurers with 20% cost ratios and 20% margins. How does Medicare do vs a 40% cost ratio provided by these insurers?
Also your $2500 penalty wouldn't come for years. You need to read a little more and bitch a little less.
And, frankly, I think anybody that refuses to get medical insurance in the future should be denied treatment.
THAT is how we are going to get rid of the bloodsuckers in the system.
Justin@"THAT is how we are going to get rid of the bloodsuckers in the system."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Go get em J-dog
Removing the bloodsuckers like Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld would be a great start.
Jared Loughner got two life sentences for killing one child: Condi and Rummy killed hundreds of thousands.