Terrorist, victims and health care

[Meyer6]

@Leaper

Funny how in these kinds of threads, we get the European posters shaking their heads in pity over the state of the system in America, but never (as far as I’ve seen) the conservatives on this board doing the opposite.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve gotten so few straight answers about why they (conservatives) think the Canadian/European system is so horrible for its people.

Actually I have seen American conservatives on this board shake their heads in pity about Canadians and Europeans having to wait months to see their family doctor, being routinely denied necessary care and unable to do anything about it, and being subject to sinister government ‘death panels’.

Never mind that that’s all pretty much fictional, some of them have provided at least some nominal reasons why they believe that the alternative is so terrible. Then there’s also the argument that “that’s socialism, and socialism is automatically evil”.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Fear_Itself

I looked into individual health insurance. For a policy comparable to what I had when I was on my wife’s insurance, it was $1400 a month.

This is astounding. $1400 a month. This seems insanely high.

One argument you’ll hear is that in countries with universal health care, we pay soooooo much in taxes though. So let’s use me as an example of what a Canadian would pay:

Well, my family is just above the median total income level. Last year, when I combine my Medical Services Premiums (for the whole family), Federal tax, Provincial tax, Municipal (property) tax, CPP (Canada Pension), EI (Federal employment Insurance), it comes to a grand total of:

$1750/month

So for an “extra” $350/month, I get medical coverage for my WHOLE family (with better health care outcomes than in the US),

plus all municipal services like garbage, streets, lighting, fire department, police, water, infrastructure etc. etc.

And, all provincial services like education, universities, the courts, policing, highways, social services, environment, forestry, mining, etc. etc.

And, all federal services like courts, agriculture, border security, national defence, air transport, coast guard, heritage, trade, space agency, citizenship, environment, consumer protection, geological survey, industry development, public works, RCMP, transport, etc. etc.

And employment insurance should I need it.

And a government pension.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Euphonious_Polemic

This is astounding. $1400 a month. This seems insanely high.

It’s not that bad.

The three levels I choose from range from$965 to $1687 (family of 3). Those are the best rates I’ve been able to find in New York for a nonsmoking, self-employed individual insurance shopper. I don’t know if the exchanges or other aspects of Obamacare are going to help, but I’d love one of our conservative (or conservatives-who-are-embarassed-to-call-themselves-that) posters who decry the notion of a public option–or who say that there is freedom of choice to walk away from an employer-subsidized plan–find me better rates.

[Leaper]

@Euphonious_Polemic

So for an “extra” $350/month, I get medical coverage for my WHOLE family (with better health care outcomes than in the US),

plus all municipal services like garbage, streets, lighting, fire department, police, water, infrastructure etc. etc.

And, all provincial services like education, universities, the courts, policing, highways, social services, environment, forestry, mining, etc. etc.

And, all federal services like courts, agriculture, border security, national defence, air transport, coast guard, heritage, trade, space agency, citizenship, environment, consumer protection, geological survey, industry development, public works, RCMP, transport, etc. etc.

And employment insurance should I need it.

And a government pension.

Oh, so you’re one of those takers enjoying the government teat thanks to the hardworking job producers whose rightly earned cash is being confiscated at gunpoint.

@Rhythmdvl

I’d love one of our conservative (or conservatives-who-are-embarassed-to-call-themselves-that) posters who decry the notion of a public option–or who say that there is freedom of choice to walk away from an employer-subsidized plan–find me better rates.

If previous experience is any sign, they’d probably say that if you can’t find better rates, it’s your fault for not studying something that’d get you a better job, for not moving, for not buying in when you were younger and healthier, etc.

[Condescending_Robot]

@RandMcnally

Because why should I have to pay for poor people to get heath care? As Jesus said, any form of socialism is bad, even if the system is human and economical.

If you pay taxes, then you certainly do pay for poor people to get health care. You pay a higher portion of your taxes towards that than to any other thing. If you took just the money the various governments within the United States spend on health care for the poor, not even health care in general, and treated it as its own economy, it would be the 13th largest GDP in the world, right behind Canada and Australia and just ahead of Spain, Mexico, and South Korea.

The idea that the problem with the American health care system is that stingy rich people are refusing to pay for the health care of the poor could not be more incorrect. It’s not just wrong, it’s insanely, explosively, up-is-down, black-is-white wrong. The only things in the world that involve more money than “the amount of money that people who are net payers of taxes contribute to the health care of the American poor” are the entire economies of the world’s wealthiest countries.

I’m not saying the system is perfect. I’m not saying anything at all about whether moving to a more European-like system would be wise. But saying that some sort of libertarian ideology or laissez-faire capitalism is preventing gross dollars from flowing into health care for the indigent is denying reality to a degree for which there are no words.

[alphaboi867]

@Gary_Kumquat

Help me to get behind this OP. Is your complaint that:

1. America doesn’t have universal healthcare, or
2. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is receiving healthcare while he is under arrest?

Well, Massachusetts does have Romneycare.

[Broomstick]

Not everyone injured in the marathon blasts lives in Massachusetts. One of the people who lost a leg is a local resident here in northwest Indiana. She certainly wouldn’t be covered under “Romneycare”. I hope to god she’s got decent insurance, otherwise she’s royally screwed.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@bienville

What’s not to understand!?!?!? It’s a pill . . . that gives worms . . . to ex-girlfriends. You just don’t get it here!!!

You know, I had such high hopes for you bienville but apparently you just don’t get it.

Americans take a narrow view. And in their narrow way they believe inhumane incarceration conditions for the accused and inexpensive universal healthcare for law-abiding citizens degrade the overall liberty of this nation. Which in fact they do, but again I think this is the narrow view.

[svd678]

Among life’s ironies: some in Milwaukee want tax-payers to fund a new basketball arena (for more spectator suites for the rich) as we are paying for Miller Stadium. That isn’t socialism?

[John_Mace]

@Broomstick

Which is yet another reason, in my opinion, we should not be providing health care via insurance in the first place.

Agreed. But don’t be upset at insurance companies for being, well, insurance companies. Insurance never covers everything, and “acts of terror” are right up there with “acts of God” in the US. In fact, they are even more rare.

@Rhythmdvl

No, the thread is clearly #2.
I’ve stumped Dopers twice over the years trying to answer this question. Self-employed, job creating small business person here. When building our business, I took a part-time job that offered skimpy benefits. I wanted to purchase “some additional coverage” but came up blank. No one here could point me to the right company. Now we’re successful enough to pay for our own insurance. At about twelve grand per year out of pocket for a good (but not exceptional) policy, I’m wondering where I can find some additional coverage that the “vast majority” of Americans can afford.

Well, you cut off an important caveat where I said that there might be a reason you can’t find coverage for the particular item you are looking for.

Still, the “vast majority of Americans” have some disposable income that they could use towards buying more insurance, if it’s available. If anyone needs a cite for that, open and GD thread, and I’ll provide it. Anyone who thinks the “vast majority” has no disposable income is an idiot or a fool. Or both.

[Antinor01]

@Broomstick

Another obscene thing is that many healthcare policies exclude acts of war or terror - meaning they’ll cover you if get a leg chopped off in a car accident but if you were at the Boston Marathon finish line when you lost a limb you’re shit out of luck, you aren’t covered for that at all. What good is insurance that isn’t there when you need it? I will note some policies would cover that, but how ridiculous! A person harmed in a terror attack is in just as much need as someone harmed in a traffic accident.

Which ones have those exclusions? I just searched a dozen different evidences of coverage and none mention the word terror.

[Broomstick]

Back when I worked in the industry (over 5 years ago now) such policies were common. If you don’t have such exclusions then consider yourself fortunate.

It’s also very common for general aviation activities to not be covered, so every year I would demand the full policy to make sure whether it was covered or not. Getting supplemental insurance to cover JUST my flying activities wasn’t hard, actually, but you had to know you had to do it. Often people just don’t know.

[Antinor01]

I remember exclusions like that from my Auto insurance days, but had never seen one since I went into health insurance about 10 years ago. Learn something new every day.

[Broomstick]

I remember a rash of such exclusions just after 9/11, as if insurance anticipated a lot of attacks. Since such attacks have been a bit rare they may be rolling back such exclusions though I expect there are plenty still out there.

[blindboyard]

@Gary_Kumquat

Nah, that’s not obscene. It’s just contemptible.

What’s obscene is that, according to Condescending’s figures above, you actually spend enough on Medicaid that, scaling up by population, Britain’s NHS would cost to provide full healthcare to every person in the country. Now that’s some truly dark shit, right there. You’re paying enough already to provide proper healthcare, it’s just that a large percentage of the US population are opposed to it on principle.

The NHS in the UK spends about £110 billion a year to provide comprehensive care for everyone. The US has about five times the population, but obviously dollars aren’t worth quite as much as pounds exchange-rate-wise, so I don’t think it would quite pay for a US-sized NHS with the medicaid budget. On the other hand the USG also funds Medicare, and the Veteran’s Administration, and the Public Health Service.

[Peremensoe]

@Broomstick

I remember a rash of such exclusions just after 9/11, as if insurance anticipated a lot of attacks. Since such attacks have been a bit rare they may be rolling back such exclusions though I expect there are plenty still out there.

I would be surprised to discover that any insurance company had ever, apart from requirements of law, amended their exclusions fine-print to offer more comprehensive coverage.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@blindboyard

The NHS in the UK spends about £110 billion a year to provide comprehensive care for everyone. The US has about five times the population, but obviously dollars aren’t worth quite as much as pounds exchange-rate-wise, so I don’t think it would quite pay for a US-sized NHS with the medicaid budget. On the other hand the USG also funds Medicare, and the Veteran’s Administration, and the Public Health Service.

From what I can tell, we’re actually talking the same numbers. For clarity, here’s CR’s budget description:

" the amount of federal money spent across all programs devoted solely to paying for the health care of the poor is well over a trillion dollars, and that DOESN’T include most of the budget for Medicaid which is largely funded at the state level."

Which actually suggests you spend an awful lot more than NHS level funding per person.

[JackieLikesVariety]

@Broomstick

So, you completely missed where I said we should eliminate the involvement of insurance companies entirely and go to a national health system like the civilized societies of Earth?

The bastardized misfit called “Obamacare” is the worst of both worlds, it’s not what I advocate. I want a national health SYSTEM, not insurance.

Of course, I’m used to Americans being unable to comprehend that you can have healthcare without the insurance middleman. Nevermind all the countries that have demonstrated that not only can it be done, it’s cheaper and yields better results.

this right here