To my friend on FaceBook who has been spewing anti-healthcare-reform messages for the past 6 months

[you_with_the_face]

@Sinaijon

Likewise with the latest hypothetical I posed to you. So what’s the point?

Oh I thought you were being cute, so I didn’t answer it. But the answer is I’d do anything (reasonably within the bounds of legality) that would allow my child to go on living. If that meant hitting the government up for assistance, then so be it.

Will you be answering mine now? I’m not going to hold my breath.

[Sateryn76]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Uh, no. That would be 51.7%:

Now, your point that not all medical costs would be covered by UHC (such as lost income due to caring for a family member) is a valid one. However, that particular group is only 6.8%.

A plane ticket to Houston? Non-starter. A $60 plane ticket and a couple of nights’ lodging is not going to bankrupt anyone unless you’re already paying for medical care out of pocket.

I presume you wouldn’t call a mastectomy patient’s boob job “cosmetic”, and while many chiropractors are quacks, many are not. In any case, chiropractic care certainly would be covered by UHC, and cosmetic surgery to correct disfigurement is generally covered.

The complexity of the issues has no bearing on whether or not the population size is significant. It’s not like they’re all beautiful and unique snowflakes; they’re grouped into “medical-related” and “non-medical-related”.

If you were looking deeper, say, at the specific illnesses which cause bankruptcies, then you’d have a point.

My bad on the number - I was posting from the middle of a busy day at work. But, my point remains - there is no control for the Debtor’s financial situation prior to any medical crisis.

And, of course a boob job after breast cancer wouldn’t be cosmetic, and while I think chiropractic care is non-medical bunk, these questions illustrate my point:

We do not have access to enough, detailed information to say with any certainty what % of bankruptcies are “caused by” medical expenses.

[Sateryn76]

@flodnak

Well, not bankrupted, maybe, but it could be a serious hardship. Especially since the plane ticket may not be sixty bucks, because the patient has to buy it on short notice. And it may not be a “couple of nights” but a couple of weeks. And the patient may be a child or teen who needs to have a parent along.

Here in Troll Country, however, most similar expenses would be reimbursed from the national insurance fund. If the travel distance is short enough, the patient may be picked up by special bus, or provided with a voucher for a taxi. And some larger hospitals have or are building patient hotels, specifically for patients who don’t need a hospital bed but live too far away to travel home (or, for instance, who would be home alone when that isn’t advisable for medical reasons). So there are solutions, other than having a sick person worry about how to pay for a motel room and the electric bill.

(Contrary to the common view of European countries as small and densely populated, Norway has about 4.5 million people spread out over an area roughly the size of the US’ Eastern Seaboard, with about a quarter of the population in the capital region. Traveling to a hospital in another city, or even abroad, to be treated by a specialist, is not at all uncommon.)

Don’t forget about the roles of Ronald McDonald houses, Shriner’s Hospitals and the like - many of these expenses, lodging in particular, is FREE.

But that’s due to charity, so never mind about that, I guess…

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We have a study which says it’s 60%. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, we can say with certainty that it’s around 60%. In any case, this should be obvious, but be it 10, 20 or 100%, any medical bankruptcies are A Bad Thing.

[Sateryn76]

@Enderw24

Oh phew. I thought it was a big problem. But it’s only 30% of bankruptcies. That’s cool.

Isn’t that what bankruptcies are for? Catastrophic events that sink a person’s finances? Or is just for out-of-control spending habits?

@Enderw24

I’m calling bullshit on this claim.

University of Texas/Zogby - 6/18-22, 2009 = 84% of people are satisfied with their health care

The Washington Post, 6/18-22, 2009 = 81% satisfied with insurance coverage, 88% satisfied with quality of care

NYT, 6/12-16, 2009 = 77% are satisfied with quality of care

Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, 6/15, 2009 = 76% of self-identified independents, 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans are satisfied with their coverage

Gallup, 12/4/08 = 83% of Americans say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’

CNN/Opinion Research Poll, March 2009 = 73% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance coverage

And add me as one more who is satisfied.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

I swear, all of the ducking and dodging and exaggerating on BOTH sides of this issue is unreal. I know both sides think they’re making impressive points, but everyone is so invested in playing the “Gotcha!” game that everyone seems to be talking past each other.

[Kaio]

@Sinaijon

Maybe in your circle of friends, but at least in my community, which admittedly is rather small, popularity has very little to do with attendance. Word gets out to the school, churches, etc, and people come to help.

I actually recently organized several of these this past spring for my neighbors daughter, who had brain surgery to remove a tumor. It was pretty heart warming to see people I didn’t know show up, introduce themselves to the family, who they also didn’t know. A lot of those people were from local churches. Another big chunk were Seniors who used the opportunity to not only help, but also to socialize over a cup of coffee.

As someone else noted, we didn’t raise enough money to cover all the medical bills, but it was enough to make things manageable. Tough, but manageable.

Hey, that’s awesome! Want to organize one for me? My medical bills have been piling up for almost four years, and so far no one’s offered to throw a fundraiser for me.

:rolleyes:

[Mycroft_Holmes]

@Sinaijon

Out of pocket, yes, but employer’s share of your premiums is reflected in a lower monthly salary for you, same as it is here in the US.

Wrong! The employer’s share is a benefit in addition to my gross salary. It’s called “Arbeitgeberzuschuß zur Krankenversicherung”. The employer’s share of unemployment, retirement and social insurance are also additions to the gross salary. It’s the main reason so many companies complain that employees are expensive in Germany. If my gross salary is 4000€ the company actually has to pay ca. 5000€ to employ me.

In other words, my out of pocket cost (the part that is subtracted from my net salary) is around 200€. Since I earn more than 3675€ I have the choice of getting private health insurance, which I will have to pay completely on my own, without receiving any subsidies, or paying the regular health insurance. If I choose private insurance I only get about 200€ more net salary.

Private insurance is cheaper for young and single employees, but for me (marrried with children) it is much too expensive, since I have to pay for each person, including the children.

[Sinaijon]

@Mycroft_Holmes

Wrong! The employer’s share is a benefit in addition to my gross salary. It’s called “Arbeitgeberzuschuß zur Krankenversicherung”. The employer’s share of unemployment, retirement and social insurance are also additions to the gross salary. It’s the main reason so many companies complain that employees are expensive in Germany. If my gross salary is 4000€ the company actually has to pay ca. 5000€ to employ me.

Exactly. If the company didn’t have to pay for your health insurance, they would be able to pay you a higher wage. You are forgoing salary in return for partial payment of your health coverage. That isn’t any different from getting the money and paying it yourself. The end result is less money that you actually get to ‘take home’.

[Sinaijon]

@you_with_the_face

Oh I thought you were being cute, so I didn’t answer it. But the answer is I’d do anything (reasonably within the bounds of legality) that would allow my child to go on living. If that meant hitting the government up for assistance, then so be it.

Will you be answering mine now? I’m not going to hold my breath.

You didn’t actually answer my latest hypothetical either. Read it again. Hitting up the government for help isn’t an option.

Besides, the point isn’t to answer hypotheticals. There is not an ethos in the world for which a hypothetical can’t be constructed for force a hypocritical choice. That doesn’t make those people hypocrites. It just makes them *hypothetical * hypocrites, which is completely meaningless, because everybody is.

I would put my child before any ethical concerns I have. Fortunately, in the real world, there are a multitude of choices in lieu of the two you offered up.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

I swear, all of the ducking and dodging and exaggerating on BOTH sides of this issue is unreal. I know both sides think they’re making impressive points, but everyone is so invested in playing the “Gotcha!” game that everyone seems to be talking past each other.

I’m not invested in playing the “gotcha!” game at all. If I “lose” every argument about UHC but public health insurance is passed, I’ll be very, very happy.

[SanVito]

@Athena

I’ve often thought about starting a thread here to see if anyone in countries that have universal health care ever see advertisements for spaghetti dinner fundraisers in their grocery stores, but I’m afraid the answer would be too depressing. I fucking hate that I live in a country where we think it’s OK that sick people have to organize charitable events in order to pay their bills.

Well since you didn’t ask…

No, no we don’t have those. The closest I can think is very occasionally you might hear about some charitable appeal to raise money for little-Johny-with-extremely-rare-disease who can only be cured by some brand spanking new procedure that is untested and only available in the US/France/China/Papa New Guinea. Those sort of appeals would probably make the local news, at the very least.

[tagos]

@Sinaijon

EThat isn’t any different from getting the money and paying it yourself.

That is an idiotic statement. And if you even have to ask why you’re just embarrasing yourself further. You lose the thread.

[Mycroft_Holmes]

@Sinaijon

Exactly. If the company didn’t have to pay for your health insurance, they would be able to pay you a higher wage. You are forgoing salary in return for partial payment of your health coverage. That isn’t any different from getting the money and paying it yourself. The end result is less money that you actually get to ‘take home’.

Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong! If the “Arbeitgeberzuschuß” was limited to certain people you would be right, but everyone who works in Germany gets the benefit, so it can’t be considered something that would get me a higher salary if I didn’t get it.

Also, in the very article you linked, it says here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/lauterbach.html:

And that person is also paying some amount for health insurance?

Right. … A person who earns, say, $60,000 a year pays about $600 for health insurance a month; this is the maximum public premium which is paid. … And someone who earns only $20,000 a year typically would pay about $250 a month.

Edited to add bolding

So, the maximum premium that is paid is $7200 (quite a difference from the $10000 you mention).

But enough nitpicking about whether it’s $10000 or $7200 I’m paying. I’ll gladly pay even more, as long as I have this security (another quote from the same interview):

… How many Germans go bankrupt in a year because of medical bills?

In Germany it’s impossible to go bankrupt for medical bills, because even if you are bankrupt, … the social solidarity system pays for your medical bills. The idea is, if you do have financial problems and a lot of worries for other reasons, you do not need to have another burden in not being able to pay medical bills.

… If you lose your job, what happens to your health insurance?

Health insurance continues with no change if you lose a job. We do know very well that people who become unemployed are at an increased risk of becoming ill, and therefore becoming unemployed is about the worst time to lose health insurance. So therefore, everyone who loses a job remains in exactly the [same] insurance system he is in.

To me it’s just plain embarassing (not to mention a tragedy) that people even CAN go bankrupt for medical bills, let alone that it happens. So the nitpicking about whether it’s 20% or 30% or 60% of the bankruptcies that are caused by medical bills is just as silly in my eyes.

[you_with_the_face]

@Sinaijon

You didn’t actually answer my latest hypothetical either. Read it again. Hitting up the government for help isn’t an option.

I’m sorry, but why should I bother with addressing your crazyland scenario when you still haven’t given a straight answer the question I posed to you a page ago?

I would put my child before any ethical concerns I have.

Does this mean you would accept government support to fund your child’s medical care if you couldn’t pay for it yourself?

[Mycroft_Holmes]

Also, note that I am one of the people paying the maximum public premium because of my high salary. I gladly pay it though, because there were times when I was unemployed and when I was studying, where I didn’t pay a cent yet was fully insured. Guess who was paying for me? The people who were earning good salaries at that time.

So I don’t fell bad about currently paying for some deadbeats, long haired hippies and emo college students. In a couple of years I’ll be paying for my own kids, who will have the chance to go to a good university (without paying a cent of tuition) and actually graduate without a huge debt. Thank God we’re not as deathly afraid of socialism as some people.

[Sinaijon]

@you_with_the_face

I’m sorry, but why should I bother with addressing your crazyland scenario when you still haven’t given a straight answer the question I posed to you a page ago?

Or more correctly, I’ve answered you twice now, but evidently you didn’t like either one of my answers, because it wasn’t one of your crazyland scenarios.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Mycroft_Holmes

Also, note that I am one of the people paying the maximum public premium because of my high salary. I gladly pay it though, because there were times when I was unemployed and when I was studying, where I didn’t pay a cent yet was fully insured. Guess who was paying for me? The people who were earning good salaries at that time.

So I don’t fell bad about currently paying for some deadbeats, long haired hippies and emo college students. In a couple of years I’ll be paying for my own kids, who will have the chance to go to a good university (without paying a cent of tuition) and actually graduate without a huge debt. Thank God we’re not as deathly afraid of socialism as some people.

But but but… You’re less free!! Or something. And socialism will rot your teeth.

[Sinaijon]

@Mycroft_Holmes

So, the maximum premium that is paid is $7200 (quite a difference from the $10000 you mention).

That may be true. But it also says that $750 is the average monthly premium. I don’t know which number is correct, so I’ll defer to you.

[Mycroft_Holmes]

@Sinaijon

That may be true. But it also says that $750 is the average monthly premium. I don’t know which number is correct, so I’ll defer to you.

I think the $750 might be referring to the average for a family or couple. If both partners work they both have to pay so it can be more than the $600 maximum per person. For instance, my wife just started working and now she pays for herself ( a relatively small amount as her salary isn’t as high as mine) and I pay for me and the kids. However my payment is the same $600 it was before, when I was paying for me, my wife and the kids (as she didn’t work).

In other words: we as a family now pay about $750 while we were paying only $600 before my wife started working.