When so many famous people who obviously had good health insurance die young, I have to question the assumed relationship between health insurance and health.
Would this money perhaps be better spent on projects that would improve the public health, such as cleaning up polluted water, sewage overflows, air pollution?
Of course, personal habits like diet and smoking play a part, but we can't blame all bad health on them.
Health insurance is about making sure that the doctors and other health providers get paid well. But if they are not keeping the population healthy, is that money well spent?
Related posts:
- Please do my survey, its for my health class.. please?
- Atkins´ diet. A little survey for those who have done it.?
- are you a smoker between 45-100 yrs old plz help wit my survey!?
- Why do people think insurance companies make a lot of money, what is the average profit margin?
- Environmental Ethics Survey?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
universal health care is the newest pandering tool adopted by the DNC
they know it wont work, but that doesnt stop them from lying to the voters to try to win the election( kind of like the did with their anti war rants in 2006 that they never actted on)
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I don't know. More people would be covered. I'm not talking about the lazy bastardos that don't want to work - I'm talking about the hard workers and small business owners that can't afford insurance or medical needs.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Personally, I don't believe that throwing more tax money at the problem will make it better. The easiest insurance solution would be to going back to covering primarily catastrophic medical areas. But, Americans want it all, so that is not a palatable solution.
BTW, I think you too easily dismiss personal habits. They make up a huge % of the problem.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Majority of health care is preventative in nature. Many people do not seek the care needed to stem off disastrous events. Also, there are many that are a drain on the system b/c of their lifestyle - obesity, smoking, etc.
The point is that if you want a system to cover people - you will alienate the vast majority who does not want to give up good benefits to have worse. And it will be worse.
There are many avenues to affect healthcare. Why not give doctors the option of working in a reduced/free clinics to provide medical in exchange for medical loan forgiveness? 1 year service for 1 year of loan forgiveness? They do that for teachers in our state.
But how do you address people that willfully do not want to purchase insurance? There are a lot of younger people that simple feel they do not need. It is their choice.
Universal healthcare is about taking choices away. Have you ever seen a SUCCESSFUL gov't run program?
ShannonW below makes a very valid point. I heard this echoed b a Duke MBA professor - healthcare is too accessible and that drives up cost. Why not just hospital insurance to cover catastrophes? Routine care should be market driven as competition drives down costs. Doctors don't have to advertise to put up ratings of service they have a built in pool of 'customers.'
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
It would if the money went to better equipment and research, instead of in the pockets of corporations.
We DO have to take better measures to prevent disease, as well. There are so ,many other avenues to pursue, as you suggest.
Too much corruption….everywhere.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think too many people think health insurance is to pay for routine doctor visits, checkups, minor illnesses, prescriptions, etc. That's one reason it's so expensive.
When your car needs an oil change, or you get a flat tire, does your car insurance cover it? No, car insurance is for when you have an accident and the repair is too expensive for you to afford. Health insurance ought to be for when you have a serious accident or illness that is too expensive to pay for.
Why should we pay a hundred dollars a month just so we can save a hundred dollars on a doctor visit once a year?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
No, it just means all the unhealthy people who didn't go to the hospital, because they couldn't afford it, will now be going.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I agree with everything you said especially personals habits America is FAT !
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
It won't especially when they see how much in taxes there paying to get it.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Since we're going to have a Nanny State, might as well get a group health insurance policy out of the deal.
Otherwise, consider:
1. Just think of the legal persecution we can deliver to those trying to make profits with illegal workers.
2. Imagine, balancing the playing field with Asia by imposing a health insurance parity tariff.
These are add-on features that have to be implemented before we can have national health insurance.
But from what I've heard, they want to make national kiddie health insurance first. Of course that will mean legal kiddies as well as illegal kiddies with workers paying for it all. By the time they get that all the kiddies insured they will have run out of money.
And, there won't be any turning back.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Insurance is a bet. You are betting that bad things will happen the insurance company is betting they won't.
When it comes to health insurance it is really not insurance as much as assurance that the bill will be paid.
Insurance companies operate to make a profit not to be altruistic so they are really in an adversarial role with those they insure.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
based upon your situation,I think you should find something useful here.http://health-insurance.expert-tip.info/health-insurance-for-free.htm