Many in the US are seriously afraid of government taking over health care. Before one can support a single payer system or any other government managed program, one must first trust the government to have their best interest at heart.

For starters, what we would likely get in the way of services from a single payer system would be budget sensitive rationing. Revenues down, services down. If you think this isn't real, look at your own state's Medicaid program. My state limits prescription drugs to 3 a month. Hospital stays are limited to 7 days per year. Physician visits 12 a year. When there is a budget shortfall, services get cut.... by state constitution, the state must balance the budget every year... no deficit spending, etc.

That's the state. Now look at what the feds did to Medicare prescription drug coverage.... doughnut holes, etc., etc.

Health care rationing in the US? You betcha. My father was retired Army, served in WWII, Korea, etc. He was NOT eligible for VA health care because, due to a short fall in congressional budgeting, VA health services were means tested..... not just income, but assets, too. He wasn't poor enough.

Would you trust these elected officials to do what's right? If you do, just sit back and watch what they do to health care reform.... and then post back that they have Joe six pack's best interest at heart if you still believe that.

If one is sitting comfortably with what they have, why would they want to risk government messing it up for them?

Asking people to trust govt with health care in a nation where we constantly hear Social Security is bankrupt (Ponzi scheme, money not really in the trust fund), Medicare will fail in the next 5 years, etc., is a big leap. Remember there are more Americans who believe in flying saucers than there are who believe they will ever see a Social Security check.

Personally, I could support a single payer system. But, what they are cooking up now doesn't seem to make any sense at all to me.

well, that last line is the kicker, isn't it. right now I'm out of a job, and having a tough time getting a new one (even in academia things are tough). that means I have no health care, because I lost the coverage from my last post. while I can make ends meet doing this and that for the moment, if I do happen to get seriously ill I am (frankly) going to die. It doesn't matter if it's curable, because I won't be able to afford the cure. the reason I can't afford it, of course, is that the 'free market' medicine rubric we've been using has driven up the costs of medicine and insurance ridiculously - drug and medicinal supply companies pad their prices because they know hospitals will pay for it, hospitals pad their rates because they know insurance companies will pay it, insurance companies raise the costs of their policies because they know that businesses and individuals don't have much of a choice except to pay it, and the wheel goes on. there isn't a damned thing the government could mess up that would make my situation worse.

Now I don't think anyone (except maybe &*#%$@s like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin) is suggesting that government is going to take your nice comfy health package away from you, and I wouldn't be for any policy that tried to do that anyway. and for the moment I'm in good health, so that's not too much of a worry. But in the event I do get sick and die, I don't really want that to happen because the paranoid delusions of a bunch of brainless right-wing pundits made it impossible for me to get any reasonable health care whatsoever. do you follow me?

TW, I certainly agree the current system is totally broken. It is dysfunctional to an extreme and hugely expensive. I would be happy to support a Canadian, French or English type health care system. I wouldn't oppose basic health insurance reform.... do away with pre-existing conditions, etc. I would do this despite being completely happy with my health insurance situation and with full knowledge a govt program would increase my taxes.

My post was simply to point out a lot of people are not afraid of socialism or socialized medicine.... they're simply afraid govt is going to mess up what they have and leave them in a bind. Glenn Beck and the other talking heads really are irrelevant to 95% of Americans.... most of whom have never heard of Glenn Beck.

My only advice in this difficult time is to make sure you receive your
unemployment first before dipping into your savings. If you get sick, it doesn't have to be a death sentence since the hospital's emergency room by law can't turn anyone away and must treat everyone.

I was unemployed once and we bought insurance on the open market and I swear that it was one of the most difficult things for me to understand. I wasn't trapped by the housing bubble, but I sure was snared by the health insurance bubble and it was when we were most vulnerable.

Good Luck with your search.

@ aehurst:
understood, and apologies for venting a bit. it's been a stressful week. But still, I'm not sure that you can discount the talking heads quite that easily. even people who've never heard of Beck have heard the arguments, and a lot of this distrust of government arises because people like that have spent years spouting a lot of nonsense for purely partisan purposes. I don't think the Fox News crowd really gives a rats a$$ about health care one way or the other, except to the extent that it's been prioritized by the new administration. there's a line between creating a counter-position based on reasoned principles and just being a plain old-fashioned biatch that FN crosses on a daily basis. the whole 'socialist' thing is just the latest slap-in-the-face tactic on an age-old pattern of aggressive idiocy. grumble grumble grumble....

well, that's not exactly an option. I wasn't fired or laid off, per se; I was working on a term-by-term contract which didn't get renewed, so technically speaking I don't meet the requirements for unemployment benefits. think of me as a migrant university worker... :rolleyes: if worst comes to worst, I'll take the CBest and temp at some high school for a bit - god knows between my math skills, my computer skills, and my own discipline I ought to be in demand. but high schoolers... yeeEEEeee...

thanks for the good thoughts, though.

Term-by-term contracts are becoming increasingly common in all walks of life -- not a good trend. About a decade ago, my youngest worked term-by-term for the government of British Columbia; no unemployment coverage, no pension plan, no other benefits. Currently, my eldest works the same way for a major drug company. In a perverse way, it's one of the downsides of legislation that makes it increasingly difficult to fire anyone for cause; companies and governments (particularly governments) hire increasing numbers of their employees as consultants/advisors/temporary workers, etc. There are fewer and fewer permanent career path jobs out there. Unfortunately, when times get tough, all those folks like tw get laid off without any severance or UI coverage.

I want to add to your statement. I know of someone who has worked under contract for years in the IT field doing client side Java j2EE and he seems to be able to stay employed contract after contract. I once stated, "It must be tough working under a contract all the time and switching jobs?" His reply was that, "It no tougher than working for an employer since you are under contract too." He further stated, "that we are all under contract."

After thinking about it, I have to agree with him. I've always sign a contract that states that this is a right to work state meaning that I can be let go anytime and I can choose to leave anytime I want. The difference is that my contract comes with benefits while his contract doesn't.

@tw

Not sure I can agree with this one. The rich (Fox News crowd) oppose health care reform, universal coverage, etc., because they know full well that a big part of the cost is going to fall on their shoulders by way of higher taxes on the wealthy. The bill passed by congress is paid for, in part, by a surtax on high earners. It is always about money, with the other crap being just fodder for the public to lock on to. Any and all govt programs are bad ju-ju to this crowd..... they call social programs "feeding the beast" and view it as a bottomless pit for govt to throw their money into..... and the need will always be endless.

Don't worry about no health insurance causing your death.... as Ron pointed out the emergency room will always treat you. Walmart & Walgreens will both fill any generic prescription for $5 or less.

Having been down the road you are worrying about now, I took it upon myself to learn all that I could about how this system works. So, in the unlikely event you end up facing one of those catastrophic health care situations let me suggest some ideas to you:

1. Check out catastrophic coverage. It is a whole lot cheaper than the generic employer based plan you are used to, and it will effectively protect you from losing everything to the hospitals. Coverage is usually limited to a dollar amount, say $500k to a $1 mil. and you'll pay the first $3-5k out of pocket. Who cares about the cap, you're just filling a short term need and you'll be paying that first $3-5k or more out of pocket anyway.

2. Medicaid in many states will pay medical bills for a class of eligibles called "medically needy." This would cover expenses for those who, for example, have $100k in medical bills and only $20k in assets. They will require you to spend your assets first, but they don't count your home or your first car. Point being..... it is better to be broke with your bills paid and your house and car safe than broke, owing $100k and about to be forced into a bankruptcy hearing. (Of course, "medically needy" is about getting hospitals paid and is usually initiated by the teaching hospitals as a way of subsidizing their operation by the state covering costs for their uninsured patients.) Don't go borrow big bucks for hospital bills without first checking this out in your state.

3. I successfully negotiated with a hospital to reduce their bill by 50%.... they weren't too tough about it because basically I ended up paying more than they would have received if I had full insurance coverage. And, if they turned the account over to a collection agency to collect, the collection agency would get 50 percent, too. So best for them to just say okay and accept the 50 % now and avoid all the hassle to get the same 50%... maybe.

It is a crying shame Americans have to put up with this crap while the rest of the developed world has free or near free health care (free as in pre-paid with your taxes).

Apologies for the long post.

Very good points and definitely something for all of us to think about that may encounter a layoff prior to a healthcare bill being signed.

I had the same experience as you with negotiated a 50% reduction in pay during my layoff sometime ago. I was completely surprised when they happily stated that they would take half the fee. I didn't quite understand why they would so happily accept 50% without a fuss. My conclusion was that at 50%, they are still making a substantial profit on the service. Your argument makes it clear that they still made more money during the negotiations than they would have made if I were fully insured. But it still shows how these hospitals inflate their prices to cover for losses in other areas of their operation.

A while back, I knew a guy who worked as a radiation lab tech (yeah, the people that make you lie on the table and zap you with high energy particles are not doctors - you don't even need a master's degree for that, just a junior college certificate). the radiologist (the actual doctor, who came in on thursdays) asked him to order some cardiac needles for the lab. so, the guy calls down to the supply area and asks for cardiac needles - turns out they're a box of 6 for $24. but the supply people tell him that he can't order from them, he has to order through central dispatch. so he calls over to central dispatch and discovers that cardiac needles are now $26 dollars apiece. so, why there was a 600% markup for carrying the box of needles down the hall and unpacking them?

It boggles the mind...

.
To my great shame, the hospital at my alma mater has done precisely that. UC Davis Hospital made national headlines after sending the family of a student a bill for more than $ 29,000 for five minutes in the emergency room. To top it off, that was after the patient died. :(

But you don’t!

All that is required is Election Finance Reform. In most countries, the American model of financing elections is called corruption.
.

What those people don't realize is that even if they're happy with what they have now, they're very likely NOT insured. They only think they are because they see health insurance mentioned on their pay stubs.

As for Glenn Beck and other Fox News talking heads, the problem is that too many Americans have not only heard of them, but they listen to them!

.
It seems to me that one of the best ways to ensure meaningful Health Care Reform, is to require all senators and congressmen to be covered by the measures of the new bill. :cool:
.

I keep coming back to this, and it strikes me that the big problem is that most Americans aren't smart enough to see that it isn't a matter of trusting the government or not. It's a matter of who do you trust more? Do you trust for profit corporation in a very mature market, where the best way to increase profits is to reduce benefits to the insured and eliminate those who get sick, or a government bureaucrat who has no financial incentive? Sure the government may not be as efficient, but when business efficiency is aimed at destroying your wealth, and with it your health, is that what we want?

.
As far as I understand it, MediCare is one of the most efficient operations out there – public or private. Am I wrong?

And lo and behold, the bureaucrats are using their negotiating power – just like private insurance companies are.
.

No, you're not wrong. I was just ceding the often expressed idea that business is more efficient than government. The point being that even if it is, that doesn't mean that it's good for society. Personally, I see just as much waste in business as in government. Maybe more.

Actually, I think Medicaid may be more efficient.... well less costly any way. My state pays 75% of the Medicare reimbursement rate on most items. All Medicaid claims are submitted electronically and automatically approved/disapproved with a check/auto-deposit or denial all untouched by human hands (course, they also do audits from time to time). And, they charge providers $5 per claim for the honor of being able to bill them electronically.

Clearly, though, government does it better and cheaper than private business. Unfortunately, Medicare and Medicaid also reimburse less than the private insurance companies resulting in providers sometimes declining to serve a Medicaid/Medicare client.

if you ask me, the real problem in both cases is the organization's attitude towards people in general. Private corporations regard people pretty much the same way that farmers regard cows (i.e. as things that have value as individuals precisely to the extent that they can be milked), while government bureaucracies tend to peg your average citizens as somewhere between helpless idiots and a mindless irritants (e.g., as things that get in the way of the smooth functioning of the bureaucracy, which is all a bureaucrat really cares about). you might get better service with a private corp for the general run of small inexpensive stuff, but at least you can be sure that the gov bureaucrat isn't wondering whether you'd satisfy the bottom line better as hamburger patties.

If you're trying to say nobody gives a rat's a$$ about you and me, I think you nailed it.

He's saying more than that, and so am I. The government employee doesn't give a rats a$$ about you, meaning that there's no skin off his/her nose if you're covered or not. They just want their little fiefdom to function properly so they can get their next raise. The corporate employee on the other hand, can't get his/her next raise or bonus unless they find a way to deny your coverage for any expensive illnesses. That's what makes the whole "death panel" objection to a public option so absurd: it's private insurance that has death panels!