[Torrie]

Fine. America's the one country in the world that's so incompetent and moronic that we can't manage a UHC or any other social program that runs well.

But on the other hand, we're the greatest country on earth! Jingoistic patriotism! AMERICA RA RA RA!!!

Until our citizens aren't dying in large numbers from a resource we could figure out a way to provide, we are not the greatest country on Earth. Far from it.

Originally Posted by oicyur

I haven't read the last couple of pages so I hope I'm not repeating anything, but here is my answer to the OP.

I think there is a huge problem with the health care in the US, but I think people are being scared into using a UHC as the solution. Instead I believe we should be looking towards getting insurance companies changed. One way that has made car insurance better is by opening up the competition across states, and I believe simply by doing that with healthcare would help a lot. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a start. Also, I believe we should put into law something to discourage fluffy medical lawsuits. I don't believe health care is a right, but I believe it should be made affordable for everyone, and I believe the suggestions I just gave are ways to get it there.

One reason I'm not a fan of UHC and am skeptical about changing our health care system is that the US is the leader of biomedical research and development, and the leader of medical innovation. From Wiki:

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't think suffocating this research and development would be good for ANYONE in the world. Instead of jumping to UHC because our health care sucks isn't the answer. Fixing what's already there so that it's affordable for everyone while keeping the freedoms available to keep medical technology evolving is very important to me.

FTR, I don't have insurance right now. Luckily our children are on Medicaid, so there's something, but we're in the place where we should be crying out for UHC since we can't afford health care, but we don't think that's the answer to our problems. I can't wait to get off of Medicaid because dealing with them has been awful (the same as dealing with the post office, DMV, or any other govt run program), but I dread paying so much for health care! If only there was an affordable middle ground.

Check out my local University's credentials. Health Canada's website has lots of information including science and research that is evolving. It is affordable if given the chance without compromising on quality.

Originally Posted by oicyur

I think it's also important to add that survival rates in the U.S. for a broad range of cancer types are the highest in the world. Something to consider when we want to overhaul our current way of doing things. How do we go about making a UHC system like Canada's while keeping the quality of the US's system?

In your last quote, it was being affordable but this one is focusing on quality. We have quality care here in Canada and it is affordable. Other nations also have quality and affordable UHC. It doesn't have to be either or. Also, can you show me how Canada isn't on par with the US's cancer rates?

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

I just want to add some perspective on fire departments and EMS since people seem to be praising them as socialized and "working great." There are huge differences in one department to the next, and lots of times there is not enough money to cover everything. I find this the worst in areas where the fire departments are volunteer. There are actually counties in THIS country where the government can't be bothered to pay firefighters. This was what my department was like when I lived in Virginia. Beyond not being willing to pay firefighters, we had to fight tooth and nail, and BEG for grants for even the simplest things. Our trucks were all more than 20 years old. It took us months to get a grant for a new chainsaw.
Most fires in that area ended up being total loss. I hate that saying that sounds like incompetence on the part of the firefighters, but what could we do? There was a group of people willing to do this on our own time and not get paid for it, and let's face it, it's just as dangerous whether you're being paid or not, and we couldn't even get the state or the county to meet us half way and just give us the equipment we needed.
Sadly, that was the reality for many of the volunteer departments there. Some had more funding and newer trucks and equipment, but it was always just a portion of what was really needed.

I don't know how the mega departments are doing. Obviously not all departments are as bad off as the one I used to be on, not even all vollie departments are. But the bottom line is there are areas in this country where government run programs are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. The citizens I served when I was a firefighter deserved better than what I was able to give them. They deserved to receive what their taxes were paying for.

The people that live in rural areas, are they going to receive what they're paying for in health care? If the Medicaid program already doesn't pay doctors what they need to function, how can we be sure they're going to start? Do we want our doctors to be as poorly funded as I know some volunteer fire departments are? There are some great doctors in this world that would work for free just like the firefighters do, but will they be given the supplies they need?
You know WHY my department wasn't funded? Our area only served about 1000 people. In my 4 years on that department we had 4 or 5 total loss homes. We didn't cover enough people to need the funds according to the people who control the cash, bigger departments needed more money than we did and they got dibs. I guess those people that lost their homes didn't matter because their homes weren't in the right place. If you've never had to call the fire department it's easy to say you're happy knowing firefighters are there without knowing the politics that goes on in their department. Just having a fire department isn't enough.
Is this how it will be with health care for people in true rural areas? Or poor urban areas? If funds are distributed based on how many people are in an area then less populated areas will be screwed. If funds are distributed based on how many taxable dollars there are in an area, less affluent areas will be screwed.

So do you currently have hospitals in rural areas? Why would those close down if they are running right now?

Originally Posted by Tammyjh

Michelle, I guess we're just going to keep missing each others points and I'm sorry about that. I'm not trying to be thick but I just am sometimes

Unfortunately, $ is always the bottom line.
We do not have a police dept. in our town as the town does not have enough $ to pay for one and our firefighters are all volunteer. Some of our school districts have consolidated, programs have been cut, and there's talk of shortening the school year statewide. A lot of programs in the dept. of human services have been cut. So yes, it all revolves around $$ to a certain degree and there is no way to implement UHC without spending $$....thats why I asked about Mass. and their health care plan because if its a universal type program(and I thought it was) that is working well, it could be used as a model for other states.

Well trust me, it took me a few posts to get where you were going so I'm sorry for being thick ~ LOL!

I don't know about Mass's state run program. Why can't other nation's health care systems be looked at and compared? I just don't see why it is the US thinks it's so hard to do when so many other nations have these systems in place. I could understand it being daunting if it had never been done before.



One other thing I don't understand is the fear of the federal gov't. You guys fight tooth and nail for the right to overthrow your gov't with your guns yet don't. You can write letters, phone your representatives, even get involved in planning. It sounds like fear is holding you back. Am I wrong in reading this in your posts?

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by Torrie

Fine. America's the one country in the world that's so incompetent and moronic that we can't manage a UHC or any other social program that runs well.

But on the other hand, we're the greatest country on earth! Jingoistic patriotism! AMERICA RA RA RA!!!

Until our citizens aren't dying in large numbers from a resource we could figure out a way to provide, we are not the greatest country on Earth. Far from it.

UHC runs *okay*. I wouldn't take a leap and say that it runs well (maybe well enough in that anyone who steps foot in the country is covered, but right now if you absolutely *have* to see a doc, you can go to the ER or a walk-in clinic who typically have sliding scales and payment plans) or fantastically. I don't want to see MY health care go down the tubes, and that's not selfish. It's self preservation. I don't see a reason to give up good health care for myself and my family, especially when there are ALTERNATIVES to UHC that many posters have put into this debate. I haven't really seen one dissenting opinion on why those options wouldn't work, but rather only condescending opinions about how people who don't want UHC don't care about anyone else or are only thinking about money. Using a previous poster's own experience with Canadian UHC, I don't want to wait 3 weeks for a mammogram when I feel a lump, when right now I can get one in less than a week if I need one. Heck, I got an EKG done at my doc for my heart issues, and was at the cardiologist getting further testing done within 3 hours. It wasn't life threatening, and I bet in a UHC system I wouldn't be prioritized to get that further testing right away. My daughter, who has many health issues, can see a derm. any time she wishes, and immediately - all we have to do is call, and they fit us in that day or get us an appointment later in the week. I think people who have conditions that need frequent interactions with doctors, like my daughter's skin disorder, are going to get screwed with UHC. People in Canada - if your kid got a skin infection, would you be able to see a derm. and get antibiotics within 24 hours? Or would my daughter's skin and general health have to suffer for a week or more until I could get her into a dermatology clinic? If something was funky on my EKG at my primary, could I get in to see a cardiologist within 24 hours to do further testing. If my daughter starts to develop mental health issues because she's being made fun of in school because of her skin and needs to be in therapy, is she going to have to wait upwards of 6 months to get an appointment with one?

[foxfire_ga79]

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

So do you currently have hospitals in rural areas? Why would those close down if they are running right now?

There are rural areas that don't have local hospitals. There are areas where hospitals have had to close because of lack of funding. That's why those close down.
I've already said that not only does Medicaid not pay enough, this year in Georgia they are REDUCING how much they pay. How long can a doctor or a hospital stay in business if they aren't getting paid? If the government already doesn't pay doctors what they need, why should I believe they'll magically start doing so when they decide to expand?
Why is it so hard for people to understand that America's government has already proven they can't handle covering our health care? If they can't handle Medicaid what makes anyone think they can handle UHC?
I see people bashing the greed of wealthy Americans, what about the greed of our own flipping government officials? Governors and Senators have lavish mansions, fleets of gas guzzling SUV's, expensive wardrobes, and eat only the best of the best foods. Compliments of John and Jane Q Taxpayer of course. Where is the outcry for them to give up something for the poor?

Originally Posted by OceanChild

People in Canada - if your kid got a skin infection, would you be able to see a derm. and get antibiotics within 24 hours? Or would my daughter's skin and general health have to suffer for a week or more until I could get her into a dermatology clinic? If something was funky on my EKG at my primary, could I get in to see a cardiologist within 24 hours to do further testing. If my daughter starts to develop mental health issues because she's being made fun of in school because of her skin and needs to be in therapy, is she going to have to wait upwards of 6 months to get an appointment with one?

Yes you could antibiotics within 24 hrs and if your dd has a pre existing health concern, she would also have a regular specialists so what you're describing, calling ahead, explaining the situation to the office would work the same. We have compartments of health care. All of the children's care is dealt with at the children's hospital so when your dd was born, she immediately would have been transferred to it to specialists that would likely came to the same dx your doctor did. Our procedure is structured differently, not necessarily better or worse, just differently. The same thing about heart issues. The hospitals are all staffed with specialists at every given time so you can see one immediately if needed. I don't real world experience with the situation you described for mental counseling but I can tell you that because I volunteered at the distress center locally, we have a 24 hr crisis line with social programs specific for kids as well as adults that you can immediately. It's like having an EMS with mental health professionals. They can be dispatched to any suicide, etc while you're waiting to get counseling. I know the distress centre offered it within 48 hrs and there are other centers here too.

Originally Posted by OceanChild

I haven't really seen one dissenting opinion on why those options wouldn't work, but rather only condescending opinions about how people who don't want UHC don't care about anyone else or are only thinking about money.

I don't mean to be condescending. I am sorry I'm coming across that way. I do think there is a huge issue of cost that US citizens have concerns about.

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

There are rural areas that don't have local hospitals. There are areas where hospitals have had to close because of lack of funding. That's why those close down.
I've already said that not only does Medicaid not pay enough, this year in Georgia they are REDUCING how much they pay. How long can a doctor or a hospital stay in business if they aren't getting paid? If the government already doesn't pay doctors what they need, why should I believe they'll magically start doing so when they decide to expand?
Why is it so hard for people to understand that America's government has already proven they can't handle covering our health care? If they can't handle Medicaid what makes anyone think they can handle UHC?
I see people bashing the greed of wealthy Americans, what about the greed of our own flipping government officials? Governors and Senators have lavish mansions, fleets of gas guzzling SUV's, expensive wardrobes, and eat only the best of the best foods. Compliments of John and Jane Q Taxpayer of course. Where is the outcry for them to give up something for the poor?

I've tried to understand this by asking why people are so afraid of their govt and what is it that's stopping them from participating in getting things to work. I feel I've asked many questions in this thread that are going unanswered.

[Jess is Write]

Originally Posted by OceanChild

UHC runs *okay*. I wouldn't take a leap and say that it runs well (maybe well enough in that anyone who steps foot in the country is covered, but right now if you absolutely *have* to see a doc, you can go to the ER or a walk-in clinic who typically have sliding scales and payment plans) or fantastically. I don't want to see MY health care go down the tubes, and that's not selfish. It's self preservation. I don't see a reason to give up good health care for myself and my family, especially when there are ALTERNATIVES to UHC that many posters have put into this debate. I haven't really seen one dissenting opinion on why those options wouldn't work, but rather only condescending opinions about how people who don't want UHC don't care about anyone else or are only thinking about money. Using a previous poster's own experience with Canadian UHC, I don't want to wait 3 weeks for a mammogram when I feel a lump, when right now I can get one in less than a week if I need one. Heck, I got an EKG done at my doc for my heart issues, and was at the cardiologist getting further testing done within 3 hours. It wasn't life threatening, and I bet in a UHC system I wouldn't be prioritized to get that further testing right away. My daughter, who has many health issues, can see a derm. any time she wishes, and immediately - all we have to do is call, and they fit us in that day or get us an appointment later in the week. I think people who have conditions that need frequent interactions with doctors, like my daughter's skin disorder, are going to get screwed with UHC. People in Canada - if your kid got a skin infection, would you be able to see a derm. and get antibiotics within 24 hours? Or would my daughter's skin and general health have to suffer for a week or more until I could get her into a dermatology clinic? If something was funky on my EKG at my primary, could I get in to see a cardiologist within 24 hours to do further testing. If my daughter starts to develop mental health issues because she's being made fun of in school because of her skin and needs to be in therapy, is she going to have to wait upwards of 6 months to get an appointment with one?

This is where you're losing me. Don't you have TriCare or something similar (I'm not all that familiar on military plans)? All of what you're describing could go away when your husband gets out of the military. I truly hope you're able to find a plan that will let Julia have the care she needs without bankrupting you guys, but I'm not optimistic. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong, but I have never had a plan that covers the dermatologist, and I don't think that's uncommon. Not to mention her pre-existing condition, so you lose your option of buying a private policy. You're touting how great your coverage is and your access to medical care, and it's a GOVERNMENT policy. Obviously, the gov't is capable of providing adequate coverage to our military, as evidenced by you and Beth in this thread. Why not start working to extend that coverage to everyone? It's not going to be an overnight solution, but I was crushed when the public option disappeared. I don't want a handout or free health care; I just wanted the option to buy into a government plan.

[foxfire_ga79]

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

I've tried to understand this by asking why people are so afraid of their govt and what is it that's stopping them from participating in getting things to work. I feel I've asked many questions in this thread that are going unanswered.

Well I thought I explained myself alright, but what else should I clarify?
Ok, here's how I see it. Our government isn't doing so great with Medicaid. Medicaid sucks so bad that there are lots of doctors that won't even accept it. If one of my kids came to me and said they wanted me to buy a new horse to be their very own, but they didn't even bother to feed or bathe the dog that was their very own, why would I get them the horse? I wouldn't give them an even bigger responsibility if they had proven they couldn't handle the small responsibility.
THAT is why I'm not on board with the government thinking they can do this. I've seen how some fire departments go unfunded, but people have used fire departments as an example of the government running a social program right. No they're not. Our government under funds everything. Schools need more money, police departments need more money, jails need more money, highway departments need more money. All these things need more money than what they are getting, and the government wants to create a new program that needs money!?

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

I don't want a handout or free health care; I just wanted the option to buy into a government plan.

Couldn't this sort of thing be accomplished by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and force them to really compete with each other? Competition drives prices down big time.

[amegra]

1. I think part of the failings with medicare is because it puts doctors into a two tier system. Why on earth would doctors want to take or spend any time on patients they don't receive money for (am I reading that right? correct me if not) when they can see patients that insurance companies pay for. In our system the doctor is paid for EVERY patient, at set rates.

2. Great point above, Tricare obviously works. So why not build on that? What you're experiencing pretty much is UHC - it's just that it's only universal for military families.

Originally Posted by OceanChild

UHC runs *okay*. I wouldn't take a leap and say that it runs well (maybe well enough in that anyone who steps foot in the country is covered, but right now if you absolutely *have* to see a doc, you can go to the ER or a walk-in clinic who typically have sliding scales and payment plans) or fantastically. I don't want to see MY health care go down the tubes, and that's not selfish. It's self preservation. I don't see a reason to give up good health care for myself and my family, especially when there are ALTERNATIVES to UHC that many posters have put into this debate. I haven't really seen one dissenting opinion on why those options wouldn't work, but rather only condescending opinions about how people who don't want UHC don't care about anyone else or are only thinking about money. Using a previous poster's own experience with Canadian UHC, I don't want to wait 3 weeks for a mammogram when I feel a lump, when right now I can get one in less than a week if I need one. Heck, I got an EKG done at my doc for my heart issues, and was at the cardiologist getting further testing done within 3 hours. It wasn't life threatening, and I bet in a UHC system I wouldn't be prioritized to get that further testing right away. My daughter, who has many health issues, can see a derm. any time she wishes, and immediately - all we have to do is call, and they fit us in that day or get us an appointment later in the week. I think people who have conditions that need frequent interactions with doctors, like my daughter's skin disorder, are going to get screwed with UHC. People in Canada - if your kid got a skin infection, would you be able to see a derm. and get antibiotics within 24 hours? Or would my daughter's skin and general health have to suffer for a week or more until I could get her into a dermatology clinic? If something was funky on my EKG at my primary, could I get in to see a cardiologist within 24 hours to do further testing. If my daughter starts to develop mental health issues because she's being made fun of in school because of her skin and needs to be in therapy, is she going to have to wait upwards of 6 months to get an appointment with one?

It took three months for me to see an endocrinologist regarding my then-severe case of PCOS. I've had to wait months to see other specialists as well. Three weeks to get a mammogram is actually normal, just last year it took my mom 4 1/2 months to get one. WE have private insurance; it is almost impossible for those without insurance to even be able to SEE a specialist. So I'm not sure why your argument is about wait times when Canada's wait times (and besides the fact that Fluga, who was speaking about mammograms, is from Finland, NOT Canada) are comparable to ours, and in some cases even BETTER than the U.S - and they will always get care, when we have 46 million people in the U.S. who have to forego specialist care to keep a home over their heads and that many of them ultimately will die without the care they need. THAT is reality.

I live in Denver, not Canada. Wait times are just as long here, if not longer in some cases, than in Canada. You also have military healthcare options - your wait times are less than the general public's. You don't HAVE to wait as long as we do, and we live in the same country.

*Edited because of latter posts.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

This is where you're losing me. Don't you have TriCare or something similar (I'm not all that familiar on military plans)? All of what you're describing could go away when your husband gets out of the military. I truly hope you're able to find a plan that will let Julia have the care she needs without bankrupting you guys, but I'm not optimistic. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong, but I have never had a plan that covers the dermatologist, and I don't think that's uncommon. Not to mention her pre-existing condition, so you lose your option of buying a private policy. You're touting how great your coverage is and your access to medical care, and it's a GOVERNMENT policy. Obviously, the gov't is capable of providing adequate coverage to our military, as evidenced by you and Beth in this thread. Why not start working to extend that coverage to everyone? It's not going to be an overnight solution, but I was crushed when the public option disappeared. I don't want a handout or free health care; I just wanted the option to buy into a government plan.

DH is applying for federal jobs and we'll have a similar plan if he gets one. If not, I always have the option as enlisting as an officer, or he has an option of re-enlisting. Any job that I've been looking at after I graduate in May has very decent health care plans. We do anticipate a higher cost for insurance b/c of her pre-existing condition, but it is still not enough to convince me that we should jump on the UHC bandwagon.

To the bolded, do you have any idea how much money the gov't wastes on ensuring the military has good health coverage? They waste a ton of money, make deals with the companies in their network so they pay those companies less, and pay the military service members crap - that is how we are able to get the benefit of good health insurance in the military. As I've said before, somehow the gov't would have to force every medical company to take less money for their services on top of forcing much higher taxes to even remotely be able to cover the costs of a plan like that. There is absolutely no way, as I've said throughout this thread, that the country would be able to cover the costs of that for 350 million people without making drastic changes, none of which I'd be in favor of.

[*Jillian*]

I grew up on Tricare and my mother was covered under Tricare when she found the lump that turned out to be cancer. She specifically wanted to go to her dr at the military hospital but the wait was over 6 weeks. Crazy.

She made an appointment with a local dr and still waited 3 weeks. Everyone waits. Especially for specialists.

I just wanted to be included in this debate since I can't stop reading it.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by amegra

1. I think part of the failings with medicare is because it puts doctors into a two tier system. Why on earth would doctors want to take or spend any time on patients they don't receive money for (am I reading that right? correct me if not) when they can see patients that insurance companies pay for. In our system the doctor is paid for EVERY patient, at set rates.

2. Great point above, Tricare obviously works. So why not build on that? What you're experiencing pretty much is UHC - it's just that it's only universal for military families.

Tricare (which we don't have, actually, we have U.S. Family Health which is a bit different, it is an option we chose) is a money pit. I've explained this. There is no way the gov't would be able to do that on a large scale. NOT TO MENTION the service members on Tricare are forced to go to crappy base clinics, and unless you have Tricare Prime, you are only allowed to go to docs on base as well. If you have Tricare Prime, you can go to a doc in the network - the network of companies are underpaid, which would never fly in the civilian world (one of the reasons I know I've mentioned twice in this thread at least).

[foxfire_ga79]

Originally Posted by *Jillian*

I grew up on Tricare and my mother was covered under Tricare when she found the lump that turned out to be cancer. She specifically wanted to go to her dr at the military hospital but the wait was over 6 weeks. Crazy.

She made an appointment with a local dr and still waited 3 weeks. Everyone waits. Especially for specialists.

I just wanted to be included in this debate since I can't stop reading it.

I think the waiting depends on the availability of the doctor in question and not the method of payment.

[*Jillian*]

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

I think the waiting depends on the availability of the doctor in question and not the method of payment.

Oh yeah. I know. I was just saying that even people on Tricare have to wait on their dr's sometimes. Everyone ends up waiting eventually so the idea of wait times shouldn't worry anyone that already has a govt. insurance plan. That's all.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by irishxrose

I live in Denver, not Canada. Wait times are just as long here, if not longer in some cases, than in Canada. You also have Tricare - you get better care than most Americans, and your wait times are less than the general public's. You don't HAVE to wait as long as we do, and we live in the same country.

Not really - we go to Johns Hopkins for our care. Plenty of other people besides military go there and experience the same exact wait times that I do. Before that, we were in California seeing specialists at Stanford U. (never had any significant wait time), and again, non-military go to that hospital all the time as well. In fact, due to the distance from the military base, I would say military people at Stanford were the exception to the rule. DD just has an exceptional tricky skin disorder, I drove nearly 2 hours one-way to get to the hospital for her. Your wait time might have to do with the area that you live in, but there's no way in hell a 3-4 week wait for a mammogram spurred by the finding of a lump is normal. Maybe a routine mammogram, sure, I don't care having to wait even 6 months for one of those. I have never, ever had an issue with wait times in Maryland - the ENT that we went to for Julia was a civilian provider, she just happened to accept our insurance, and we were in there within one week. My cardiologist is at Hopkins, and I didn't have to wait to get an appointment for her either - I literally had an appointment 3 hours after my EKG with my primary care doc, and it was non-emergency.

[Jess is Write]

Originally Posted by OceanChild

DH is applying for federal jobs and we'll have a similar plan if he gets one. If not, I always have the option as enlisting as an officer, or he has an option of re-enlisting. Any job that I've been looking at after I graduate in May has very decent health care plans. We do anticipate a higher cost for insurance b/c of her pre-existing condition, but it is still not enough to convince me that we should jump on the UHC bandwagon.

To the bolded, do you have any idea how much money the gov't wastes on ensuring the military has good health coverage? They waste a ton of money, make deals with the companies in their network so they pay those companies less, and pay the military service members crap - that is how we are able to get the benefit of good health insurance in the military. As I've said before, somehow the gov't would have to force every medical company to take less money for their services on top of forcing much higher taxes to even remotely be able to cover the costs of a plan like that. There is absolutely no way, as I've said throughout this thread, that the country would be able to cover the costs of that for 350 million people without making drastic changes, none of which I'd be in favor of.

To me, your posts are reading like this: You have excellent coverage as a direct result of it being provided by the government because your family is military. Because you have this excellent coverage, you wouldn't want any changes made that would cause that coverage to become less (I get that. I would be reluctant to lose my coverage as well if I had any). This coverage is so exceptional, that both you and your husband are considering other jobs that will allow you to stick with this government provided health care plan. But you don't want anyone else besides military to have access to this type of plan because it would require drastic changes, none of which benefit you.

I'm not even sure how to respond at this point. Hopefully, I'm just misreading your posts.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

To me, your posts are reading like this: You have excellent coverage as a direct result of it being provided by the government because your family is military. Because you have this excellent coverage, you wouldn't want any changes made that would cause that coverage to become less (I get that. I would be reluctant to lose my coverage as well if I had any). This coverage is so exceptional, that both you and your husband are considering other jobs that will allow you to stick with this government provided health care plan. But you don't want anyone else besides military to have access to this type of plan because it would require drastic changes, none of which benefit you.

I'm not even sure how to respond at this point. Hopefully, I'm just misreading your posts.

No, I'm saying that the type of coverage that the military benefits from wouldn't be feasible for the entire country. I've said this over and over. Military makes crap wages and in return they get decent health insurance; on top of that, the gov't makes deals with contractors that allow for the coverage, and force the companies that provide the health care to take less payments than what the medical treatment is actually worth. I'm saying that is not going to happen on a large scale, for 350 million people. For that to happen, the gov't would have to force every single health care company in the industry to accept less for their services (which I seriously doubt would happen). Health care corporations and politicians are intertwined with each other, neither of which want to lose money, so therefore forcing health care companies to accept less for their services wouldn't work. I believe I even posted a link about Obama in a PP referencing this fact.

I'm not against health care reform, I'm against a UHC plan because I don't believe for a second that it would be anything at all like military health insurance, and that the standard of care would decline. If the U.S. could figure out a way to lower the cost of buying insurance, or revamp the entire medical industry, I'm behind that all the way. I believe I've also laid out several times in this thread perfectly acceptable alternative actions which could happen which would reduce the health care crisis that we're experiencing, as have other posts, such as getting rid of HMO's and PPO's. Other post's have suggested letting insurance companies compete across state lines.

It's not at all about what only benefits me. I am not convinced that there would be a way for the gov't to give the level of military insurance to everyone in the entire country regardless; I'm not convinced the gov't would be able to effectively run this system if they did somehow manage to get it in place, when even the system that I'm sitting here saying is so great is a giant money pit and costs so.much.ridiculous.money to run, forget on a scale of the entire United States. I don't want to see my level of coverage change, and I don't see why anyone would. And it's not like we're exceptionally privileged with the insurance - almost anyone under the age of 42 can join the military.

Insurance is an important aspect of whatever choice we make because of the nature of DD's disorder, so if that means either DH re-ups or I join as an officer, that is what we'll do. If we can get a job that offers good insurance, then great too. We're actually very optimistic that we'll be able to leave the military behind in the spring and move on as civilians.

[Banned-Fergy]

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

Benjamin Franklin founded the country's first hospital. The colonies footed the bill to provide medical care to settlers who needed it, and the colonies paid for the funerals of those who died. This country was founded on everyone being able to see a doctor when they needed it, regardless of their income.

Actually, Benjamin Franklin did NOT found the first hospital, he helped found it. It was NOT funded by the state because there was no such thing as a state back then. PRIVATE DONORS gave money to start the hospital and the doctors lived there because they were NOT paid. This country was founded like you said but not at the expense of taxpayers but rather at the expense of willing donors. Being funded on Charity and being funded on taxes are VERY different.

Of course I'm against UHC. I'm against the government being in health care pretty much at.all. Health care costs do rise all the time and I believe it's due to government regulations mostly. I don't see lowering health care costs to be attributed to putting MORE government into it. That's not how you cure a disease, by putting more disease into the patient.

Everyone finds it easy to say, "Well, you have great insurance and that's why you are against UHC." No, not hardly. You can call me selfish but when you use your OWN personal issues to describe why we need UHC, what is that? Unselfish? Not quite. (I'm being general here, no one being called out specifically). If we could get past the whole "you believe this because YOU" and actually debate facts, it would be a better debate overall. Again, just my observation that I felt I needed to throw out there.

I'm sure there are AWESOME sides to UHC but there are AWESOME sides to private health care. Same goes for AWFUL. I like to give credit where credit is due though. Most of the awful sides to private health care have a government regulation or two to blame. Your insurance is too expensive? Could it be because the government regulates how insurance companies can compete? Your prescription med costs are through the roof? Could part of the reason be the awful mandates the FDA puts on private pharm companies? I could go on and on.

I'm sure there are tons of angles I can debate this (the Constitution, the downfall of the American public due to being reliant on the government, the failure of so many government social programs, the huge amounts of waste in every government program, etc, etc) but I'm not sure how to do so at this point. I see a tax debate going on but there is NO WAY we could model ourselves exactly like any other country. If you really want an idea of how our government would do with UHC, go live on a reservation. Grow up on a reservation. You can compare our system to Canada all you want but truth is, our government does not run Canada. You can get a better idea of health care run by the government completely on an Indian Reservation. I, for one, do not want to turn this entire country into a reservation. The Federal Government can't fulfill it's obligation to a small percentage of the population, what makes you think it can fulfill ANYTHING to the entire population?

[Jess is Write]

Companies that provide health care should be forced to take less! The costs of health care are so ridiculously inflated that I'm comfortable using the word extortion. Charging a patient $25 for a single Tylenol is not okay. Neither is charging a patient $1,000 PER NIGHT for a hospital room. The reason every other industrialized country can afford UHC is because providers aren't charging an asinine amount for care.