Health Care, Are you happy with yours?

[Jim in ICT]

I'm satisfied with my coverage through my job. I take the responsibility and choose the coverage my family can afford according to our needs and medical history. I also contribute to a 401(k) and purchase company stock in order to create some money in savings. I'm concerned that too many citizens look to the government to supply them with their wants and "needs" and consided this healthcare coverage a right. It's a good that you purchase, not a right. The more people are given, the more they think they diserve.
I'm also concerned that the projections of costs and offered coverage are not correct and accurate. I hav no proof otherwise, but try to name any programs or organizations operated by our government (Rep. or Dem.)that are run efficiently without waste and on budget. The congressional cafeteria even loses money! Obama was touting the corruption, fraud & waste in Medicare and Medicaid and how that would be cleaned up. Let's start there and see what can be done before we turn the whole industry upside down. One can only wonder how many private sector jobs would be lost in favor for more government employees on the dole?

 

[keegs]

So you are suggesting that the government would be more EFFICIENT at allocating health care?

Fallbrook, it's not a suggestion that the current system costs double what other developed economies are spending on health care while leaving large numbers uninsured or underinsured, it's a fact.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Fallbrook, it's not a suggestion that the current system costs double what other developed economies are spending on health care while leaving large numbers uninsured or underinsured, it's a fact.

Firstly, please answer my question, before changing the subject, Do you think that the government is the most EFFICIENT means of delivering health care.
Secondly, the "fact"(please also enlighten me as to attribution) that the US may spend more on health care per capita, I guess I'd rather have a Toyota than a Yugo( You know why they put a rear window de-fogger on Yugo's, So you could keep your hands warm,while pushing it.

 

[keegs]

Firstly, please answer my question, before changing the subject, Do you think that the government is the most EFFICIENT means of delivering health care.
Secondly, the "fact"(please also enlighten me as to attribution) that the US may spend more on health care per capita, I guess I rather have a Toyota than a Yugo( You know why they put a rear window de-fogger on Yugo's, So you could keep your hands warm,while pushing it.

I'm not sure what your question is Fallbrook. Are you suggesting that the bill proposes we all get insurance from the VA?

If so I think recent independient reviews of the VA report it provides high quality health care at costs lower than the for profit system the rest of us use.

If you don't think that the government serves a role in shaping markets then you probably think the financial system, prior to the meltdown, was over regulated.

You can do your own research on what other developed countries are paying.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I'm not sure what your question is Fallbrook. Are you suggesting that the bill proposes we all get insurance from the VA?

If so I think recent independient reviews of the VA report it provides high quality health care at costs lower than the for profit system.

If you don't think that the government serves a role in shaping markets then you probably think the financial system prior to the meltdown was over regulated. :laughing:

You can do your own research on what other developed countries are paying.

So I guess you don't want to answer the question.
Once more: Do you think that the government is the most EFFICIENT means of delivering health care?

 

[dave1949]

Excellent point! So if I my paraphrase, before the government got involved, in "co-pays" etc. the cost of health care was actually less expensive?

I think the adoption of HMO's in the early 1980's needs to be taken into account also. That added a cost layer to the equation without providing a benefit it seems. HMO's are private corporations.

Our health insurance (out of pocket costs) is $6,228/year for my wife and I. Fortunately, we haven't had to find out if we are 'happy' with our care, although the day will come when we will find out. After my wife retires, the current estimated cost of our health care insurance will be ~$3,000/year for her alone or ~$9,000/year for both of us; using the same insurance plan. I sort of doubt we will be signing up for that.

There is no way my 83 year old mother living on Soc. Sec. could pay her own medical costs without Medicare - mostly for expensive prescription drugs. I think the drugs have extended and improved her quality of life.

In general, whether one is happy or not with the quality of health care, it has become unaffordable for millions of working families. Those of us who pay for health insurance are subsidizing low income working families, now, before any bill passes. To think that only 'bums' need health care cost support is simply not true. The costs are out of control now and continue to spiral upward. There are only a few ways to fix that problem and they all have downsides.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

So I guess you don't want to answer the question.
Once more: Do you think that the government is the most EFFICIENT means of delivering health care?

I think the bill attempts to structure the insurance market in such a way that makes it (the insurance market) accessable to 32 million more Americans.

I don't have a crystal ball Fallbrook. Check back with me in five years. :laughing:

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Bye the Bye, I hope that anyone reading this, is aware that I am discussing economics ,NOT politics! You do NOT want to get me started on politics

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I think the adoption of HMO's in the early 1980's needs to be taken into account also. That added a cost layer to the equation without providing a benefit it seems. HMO's are private corporations.

Our health insurance (out of pocket costs) is $6,228/year for my wife and I. Fortunately, we haven't had to find out if we are 'happy' with our care, although the day will come when we will find out. After my wife retires, the current estimated cost of our health care insurance will be ~$3,000/year for her alone or ~$9,000/year for both of us; using the same insurance plan. I sort of doubt we will be signing up for that.

There is no way my 83 year old mother living on Soc. Sec. could pay her own medical costs without Medicare - mostly for expensive prescription drugs. I think the drugs have extended and improved her quality of life.

In general, whether one is happy or not with the quality of health care, it has become unaffordable for millions of working families. Those of us who pay for health insurance are subsidizing low income working families, now, before any bill passes. To think that only 'bums' need health care cost support is simply not true. The costs are out of control now and continue to spiral upward. There are only a few ways to fix that problem and they all have downsides.
Dave.

Hi Dave,
Welcome to the fray.
I agree that health care costs have risen much faster than the Cost of Living index, but if you were to look at when the costs began to spiral out of control, you would find a correlation between that and the beginning of more and more government involvement.
Simple economics, If a product becomes too "expensive" people will either not buy the product, or find an alternative. Unless of course, something(??????) distorts the market.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I think the bill attempts to structure the insurance market in such a way that makes it (the insurance market) accessable to 32 million more Americans.

I don't have a crystal ball Fallbrook. Check back with me in five years. :laughing:

Funny, that's just about the time the the "benefits" that everyone will be paying for starting now, will just be starting. Sounds like a plan!