Age Cap

[Shoveler]

I've explained the logic and you can't refute it, at all. All you can say is 'ASSUMPTION', when it's a logical, reasoned stance.

The uninsured are on average more healthy than the insured, simply because people who are healthy and/or aren't at risk to fall ill (mostly young adults) don't have a lot of direct incentives to get health insurance.

I've seen no evidence to support that the majority of that 45 million are "mostly young adults". As in under 30 years old. I just haven't seen any proof of that. Not to mention the numbers of those 45 million that have pre-existing conditions that can't get private coverage now for their disease so why pay. I'd be interested in those numbers, I'll try to look it up.

By insuring everyone you'd include the low-risk cases as well - and you're effectivelys spreading the healthcare cost of the high-risk group (which is insured anyway) over a larger group, hence lightening the burden per capita.

As I've said before, this is sound in a general sense, but not for this specific 45 million.

Again, there's a sample bias there. You may have moved around, but from the way you're talking I bet you're not living in a ghetto. Hospitals in those areas are a lot more likely to be of poorer quality. And that's just one example, there are a lot of different reasons why your experience isn't automatically representative of the entire system.

If you saying that my experience is worthless because I haven't visited every ER in the US. Okey-dokey then. Are some hospitals better then others? Obviously, that includes in Finland and anywhere else for that matter. Where are you from again? Netherlands?

Just because you all have health coverage for all don't try to explain to me it's all equal. Newsflash, it's not.

The first might be the case because the lack of health insurance for a large part of the population probably discourages them from seeking medical help. I don't see why the second would be the case at all.

I can tell you nursing is highly paid, and highly sought after here. Beyond that, I couldn't give a reason any better than you could.

So not every employer offers insurance.

I don't recall claiming otherwise.

Because I've explained my logic and you haven't been offering counter-arguments to it. My logic directly refutes your assumption, too, so you would think that maybe there'd be a point to arguing it.

Because you leaving out items in you logic that need to be factored in. Pre-existing conditions being a major one. Countless people have difficulty getting coverage due to this, even the ones currently insured, even kids, even all demographics. Many give up trying, but Medicaid will usually cover it, but your income has to be next to non-existant.

Only if you buy into the idea that everyone can make something of themselves if they just work hard. I never bought into that: luck and opportunity play a much larger role in life than the American Dream would have you believe.

Depending on your definition "making something of themselves". Filthy stinking rich? Maybe not, but able to provide a nice living, for your family, yes those opportunities exist in abundance. As for luck, it factors into everything.

I'm not rich, never have been, I don't come from money or fame. But I put my head down and show up to work everyday. There's been several times in my past I did jobs I wasn't educated for, why, because I had to survive. I'd do it again if it meant survival, even working at the fast food place, it wouldn't matter. An yes, I probably got lucky a few times, that's why I try to spread it around.

Shov

 

[Sander]

I've seen no evidence to support that the majority of that 45 million are "mostly young adults".

Which is not what I was saying. Young adults are an example of that group, not its entirety by any means.

As I've said before, this is sound in a general sense, but not for this specific 45 million.

I'd like to see the numbers before I'd accept that it wouldn't work for this group. 45 Million is a lot of people.

If you saying that my experience is worthless because I haven't visited every ER in the US. Okey-dokey then. Are some hospitals better then others? Obviously, that includes in Finland and anywhere else for that matter. Just because you all have health coverage for all don't try to explain to me it's all equal. Newsflash, it's not.

And again: not what I am saying. I'm saying that you can't use your personal experience as a proper representation of the entire US system.

Because you leaving out items in you logic that need to be factored in. Pre-existing conditions being a major one. Countless people have difficulty getting coverage due to this, even the ones currently insured, even kids, even all demographics. Many give up trying, but Medicaid will usually cover it, but your income has to be next to non-existant.

I don't know the impact of pre-existing conditions, I'd like to see some numbers though.

Depending on your definition "making something of themselves". Filthy stinking rich? Maybe not, but able to provide a nice living, for your family, yes those opportunities exist in abundance. As for luck, it factors into everything.

I'm not rich, never have been, I don't come from money or fame. But I put my head down and show up to work everyday. There's been several times in my past I did jobs I wasn't educated for, why, because I had to survive. I'd do it again if it meant survival, even working at the fast food place, it wouldn't matter. An yes, I probably got lucky a few times, that's why I try to spread it around.

Shov

A lot of people cannot find that work at any level: they can't find the work they need to feed their families. Debt problems throughout the US population compound this problem.

 

[Shoveler]

What I've found so far:

"It has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[9] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[10] A recent study concluded that 15% of people shopping online for health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition, or for being overweight. This label does not necessarily mean they can never get health insurance, but that they will not qualify for standard individual coverage. People with similar health status can be covered via employer-provided health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States



Highlights from estimated 45 million:
1. 20% can afford it, just don't want to pay

2. 25% are eligible for Medicaid and the like

3. 56% need finanical help to pay for insurance,
roughly 25 million

4. 5 million have pre-existing condition pre-cluding them from
coverage they need

Wikipedia, so it could be skewed one way or another. I'll look around a little more later.

The 45 million number is determined wether or not they didn't have coverage at any time throughout the year. People that were without coverage for 1 day, 1 month and so on would be included in this number. Not sure how much that affects things either. I wonder what the number is of people whom were without coverage for the entire year was.

For example: If you were on Medicaid, which has to be renewed every month, if you let it lapse for one month, you'd be included in this number as well. Which seems a little mis-leading.

Shov

 

[Kilus]

Wouldn't removing employers from health insurance reduce their burden per employee thus encouraging them to retain and hire more employees?

 

[Verd1234]

Just posting this to let y'all know but, for good or for bad, but the Obama Healthcare reform is essentially just eliminating bad insurance industry practices, forcing everyone to have insurance, and expanding Medicaid...

I personally support it but it doesn't change much of Medicaid itself...

 

[MutantScalper]

It's not much, it just comes down to choices. Do I want to be able to choose how much I pay for health care, or do I want the government to choose for me. I'd rather choose. I'd wager so would a large part of the 45 million uninsured we have. I know it's hard to fathom, but some people just will not pay ANYTHING for health care. Even if they have the funds to do so. I know, I was one in my college days, why spend the money, I'm not sick. Had I walked into any ER, would have I been treated being uninsured? The answer is yes. They'll treat virtually anyone, and bill you later. In fact, you get large discounts if you pay cash (no insurance) up 20-25% off. I seen as high as 50%, I work in the medical field, I see it all the time.

Shov

We have a choice here too like I said, we have a very strong private sector in health care, maybe one of the best in the world. Our right-wing government is trying to dismantle the public health care and push the country by force into a more private sector - oriented ways. But even they recognize that there is no point in breaking a system that works, meaning a good strong public health care.

It's not just about health care, it's also about a high level in research in medicine that is needed and what I would say Finland has. I don't think everything should be privatized in a nation. We've had several examples of privatization-gone-awry in our nation.

 

[Shoveler]

We have a choice here too like I said, we have a very strong private sector in health care, maybe one of the best in the world. Our right-wing government is trying to dismantle the public health care and push the country by force into a more private sector - oriented ways. But even they recognize that there is no point in breaking a system that works, meaning a good strong public health care.

It's not just about health care, it's also about a high level in research in medicine that is needed and what I would say Finland has. I don't think everything should be privatized in a nation. We've had several examples of privatization-gone-awry in our nation.

The WHO has Finland ranked at 31st in the world, but that's from 2000, US was 37th, that's just best health care system. They had plenty of other stats I didn't look at completely. Couldn't find a more recent one yet.

France was pretty consistanyly at the top. Impressive.

EDIT: France was also the leader in preventable deaths. Ouch.


Shov

 

[Ravager69]

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8991/tripgj9.swf

Dude, your philosophy boils down to "If there ain't enough food to feed people in our country, kill and eat the poor folks. Problem solved." Ain't no way in hell this is right. Blame the doctors for not caring to know any better, not the old people who have supported fear of death every time something happens to them.

 

[MutantScalper]

We have a choice here too like I said, we have a very strong private sector in health care, maybe one of the best in the world. Our right-wing government is trying to dismantle the public health care and push the country by force into a more private sector - oriented ways. But even they recognize that there is no point in breaking a system that works, meaning a good strong public health care.

It's not just about health care, it's also about a high level in research in medicine that is needed and what I would say Finland has. I don't think everything should be privatized in a nation. We've had several examples of privatization-gone-awry in our nation.

The WHO has Finland ranked at 31st in the world, but that's from 2000, US was 37th, that's just best health care system. They had plenty of other stats I didn't look at completely. Couldn't find a more recent one yet.

France was pretty consistanyly at the top. Impressive.

EDIT: France was also the leader in preventable deaths. Ouch.


Shov

Got a link about that, couldn't find any 'ranking board' from WHO's pages.

France has done pretty well considering that they're not a hugely rich nation and that they have a pretty big population.

 

[Shoveler]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

There ya go, like I said though, it's from 2000. They stopped doing them because of the complexity according to the website. Lots of other interesting stats there too.

Shov.

 

[MutantScalper]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

There ya go, like I said though, it's from 2000. They stopped doing them because of the complexity according to the website. Lots of other interesting stats there too.

Shov.

Looks a bit bogus to me, life expectancy for Finnish men at under 70 years?

Here's a bit more accurate info about life expectancy, links at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Edit. Oh wait, it's "Healthy life expectancy". Meaning the full life time minus the average sickness time. Still a bit sceptical of those stats, Spain that high up? And Italy at number 2?

I think it's a good idea to measure health care systems of different countries but those stats are a decade old and I'm not quite sure about the methodology behind it.

 

[Shoveler]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

There ya go, like I said though, it's from 2000. They stopped doing them because of the complexity according to the website. Lots of other interesting stats there too.

Shov.

Looks a bit bogus to me, life expectancy for Finnish men at under 70 years?

Here's a bit more accurate info about life expectancy, links at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Edit. Oh wait, it's "Healthy life expectancy". Meaning the full life time minus the average sickness time. Still a bit sceptical of those stats, Spain that high up? And Italy at number 2?

I think it's a good idea to measure health care systems of different countries but those stats are a decade old and I'm not quite sure about the methodology behind it.

Actually it mostly reinforces it, Spain and Italy are still pretty high up on your list as well. In ten years stats probably change some, but probably not a whole lot.

Shov

 

[MutantScalper]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

There ya go, like I said though, it's from 2000. They stopped doing them because of the complexity according to the website. Lots of other interesting stats there too.

Shov.

Looks a bit bogus to me, life expectancy for Finnish men at under 70 years?

Here's a bit more accurate info about life expectancy, links at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Edit. Oh wait, it's "Healthy life expectancy". Meaning the full life time minus the average sickness time. Still a bit sceptical of those stats, Spain that high up? And Italy at number 2?

I think it's a good idea to measure health care systems of different countries but those stats are a decade old and I'm not quite sure about the methodology behind it.

Actually it mostly reinforces it, Spain and Italy are still pretty high up on your list as well. In ten years stats probably change some, but probably not a whole lot.

Shov

It might actually be quite different.

This is the data behind the stats in your link, right?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html

So what does for example the first bracket mean, under "Attainment of goals", "Health", "Level (DALE)"? Would help if the methodology would be explained a bit more detailed.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Just posting this to let y'all know but, for good or for bad, but the Obama Healthcare reform is essentially just eliminating bad insurance industry practices, forcing everyone to have insurance, and expanding Medicaid...

That's totally wrong, and what's happening right now in the real world proves it. Everything the critics of Obamacare said about it is coming true. I personally know quite a few people who have already lost their low-cost, private health insurance that they shopped around for and liked, and the ones who are not losing their insurance are seeing huge premium increases. There will be fewer doctors and millions more people getting "free" health care, which will inevitably decrease quality and lead to rationing. Assuming it hold up in court (which I doubt) the IRS will soon be monitoring everyone to make sure they buy the correct amount of insurance as prescribed by the government (maybe you don't care that the IRS will be monitoring you). And it's going to push the U.S. even deeper into debt on top of everything.

The philosophy of Obamacare is this: instead of 85% of the population getting really good heathcare, 90% will get mediocre health care.

 

[Ghoullove]

The OP is inaccurate when he says healthcare in Canada is free. I am Canadian and I have paid income tax for over 20 years toward healthcare, enough to choke a fucking moose (or elk for you euros). There are a lot of things not covered under the healthcare system like drugs, hospital stays, ambulance rides and being shaved by nurses,

As for the elderly, sorry to break it to you bud, but they outnumber young people. Get used to them being around.

These other asses on this forum going on about cutting of old people's healthcare at a certain age or eating them should be profoundly urinated on and then smeared with some freshly shaven Ghoullove hair.


p.s. I had a great sex session with a black woman on Saturday night. She said I was really white.

 

[SimpleMinded]

That's totally wrong, and what's happening right now in the real world proves it. Everything the critics of Obamacare said about it is coming true. I personally know quite a few people who have already lost their low-cost, private health insurance that they shopped around for and liked, and the ones who are not losing their insurance are seeing huge premium increases. There will be fewer doctors and millions more people getting "free" health care, which will inevitably decrease quality and lead to rationing. Assuming it hold up in court (which I doubt) the IRS will soon be monitoring everyone to make sure they buy the correct amount of insurance as prescribed by the government (maybe you don't care that the IRS will be monitoring you). And it's going to push the U.S. even deeper into debt on top of everything.

The philosophy of Obamacare is this: instead of 85% of the population getting really good heathcare, 90% will get mediocre health care.

So you'd like to go back to an older system, where if you're badly hurt or contract an illness as a child, you should be SOL for the rest of your life once your coverage under your parents insurance runs out?

Or you'd like to keep the system where your health insurance company can cancel your insurance coverage after you've received an operation they approved of, leaving you with the bill?
link

And you say "Obamacare" is the reason premiums are going up? Yet they'd gone up 131% in the last ten years before "Obamacare" even took effect. link

Is it perfect? No. So let's take it as the first step and work to improve upon it, not whine about how it's destroying an already broken system.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Anthem just approved a 47% premium hike here in CT in response to the reforms. They are the largest insurer in the state.
http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2010/10/anthem-approved-for-health-ins.html [/b]

 

[Dragula]

Old people are lower priority, at least in Sweden.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Anthem just approved a 47% premium hike here in CT in response to the reforms. They are the largest insurer in the state.
http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2010/10/anthem-approved-for-health-ins.html [/b]

Fuckin a. I surrender haha.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Somehow I don't feel like a winner though. I don't have Anthem, but I don't see why my HMO won't follow suit to a certain degree in the same climate.

I'm just a working man, I get screwed by insurance companies or I get screwed by the gov't. Or both. What's the difference?

I liked the idea of HSAs which I had at my last job. They need to offer more progressive plans like this if they want to get everybody on board. People obviously have different needs.