I Am For Health Care... but, against taking my plan away!!!

Paul, you seriously misjudge me. I used to be one of the street people that you refer to. I lived out of a car and took charity from missions, the government, and anywhere else I could get a handout. I know exactly what life on the street is like. You are completely correct that most of the people on the street are involved in drugs and alcohol and you know what, I don't want a penny of my money going to them! That is one of the main reasons I'm against any government run charity. Money goes to undeserving people. If the government would institute mandatory drug and alcohol screening for any charity recipients, I'd have much less of a problem with government run charity.

 

My point of view on that is simple :
Healthcare for someone who needs it is not a good, something you merit or deserve if your have money or not. It should be given to everyone at no cost, because you can't manage health, life, people, as any other " risk ".

Let's say i admit the system now (that's your system after all, if you support it, that's your deal, i have nothing to say), that everyone has to pay for his health insurance, rich or midclass, and that the poorest are taken in charge by medicare.

THE thing i cannot admit, is the concept of " limitation ". Let's say someone's unlucky, has diabet, 2 accidents, and finally a cancer in a few years, and has to have surgery several times. From what i understand, there is a " limit " in yoru insurances. Like if, at some time, they say " we've spent enough, you've reached the limit ". That is not normal. Someone has to sell all he owns to pay for surgery (NEEDED surgery) ? That is not normal. That is a shame.

Of course, if i misunderstood the concept of " limitation ", just tell me

 

"No cost"... that's an interesting concept.

How is that even possible?

Doctors deserve to be paid.

Drug manufacturers deserve to be paid for their medicines.

Hospitals don't just spring up out of the ground.

 

"No cost" for those who need it. I mean you don't have to sign a check or are refunded for what you've paid.

How do you pay the doctors, the hospital, the drugs ? A tax. A general tax, paid by everyone. The " health " tax

A tax that gives access to heavy surgery to everyone. Of course, if you're lucky, in good health, you'll pay the tax for nothing, and most will be glad to pay it instead of needing healing, but who knows, in your old days, maybe you'll require heavy health care. That's the concept of " solidarity ".

 

Do you limit such a system to health care?

How about housing, food, clothes, a car, furniture, vacations, etc.?

It can be argued that everyone needs those things too.

 

I think many of the rest exists. Housing with reduced costs with income conditions, and many associations give furnitures, clothes to people in need.

Health is vital. I can't imagine someone dying because he didn't go to the doctor for a matter of money.

 

And systems already exist for people without health insurance to have access to health care too.

 

As i said Targus, let's say you have a private insurance you can afford, are from the middle class. Is it possible, in some unlucky bad times, let's imagine you have an accident in the garden, cut 2 fingers, 2 months later you break your leg and need surgery, and finally fall in the stairs, break both arms and need long reeducation, in such a case (rare), that your insurance says " enough " and stops paying for a health bill ? Is it possible that some family sell their home to pay for health ?

 

An insurance policy is a legal contract that defines the coverage and limits of coverage in exchange for the premium charged.

It is my understanding that as long as you pay the premiums on time, the insurance company cannot drop you.

 

I guess that it's like for car insurance. Let's say someone who has his health insurance taken in charge by his employer looses his job. That person, who's 50, is obese, had diabet and high blood pressure. I guess some insurance will refuse to take her in charge, or accept at a very high rate.

I can understand the concept of a " private " insurance for health, and that some want the right to pay, or not for it (and then assume their choices in case of sickness).

In such a case, those insurance companies would :
- Be non profit organization (profit and healthcare, something annoys me in the concept).
- Continue your contract if you're fired at the same negociated price.
- Be obliged to accept everyone, having yoru contribution based on your income, with the SAME guarantees than those with higher income. Then, the poorest, or retired people in bad health with low income could still be covered.
- Of course, they could not set limit to your care in case or cancer, or heavy (and costly) sickness.

Then i think it would be fair.

An interesting link :
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)00404-5/abstract

 

Yes, and one of the reforms to our health care system that has been proposed is to make health insurance "portable".

"Portable" means that if you change jobs that you can keep your health insurance and take it with you to your next job.

Simple limited solutions are very often better than tearing the whole system apart and trying to rebuild it.

 

Ah, i agree with the concept of portability too !

And affordable for everyone too (mostly thinking about our elders who often require/cost much more healtcare).

Everyone should have an insurance at a reasonable cost compared to what he really earns (and have this cost lower if he looses his job, and have it increased if he is promoted and his salary raises, it would follow the income in fact).

Everyone should have access to the same benefits and consideration, no matter what he pays.

No health insurance company could refuse someone for medical reasons, or stop paying the bills of someone requiring heavy/long treatment/surgery.

In such terms, that would be a real progress ! What do you think about this all Targus ?

 

The U.S. has a system called Medicare which provides health care for the elderly and a system called Medicaid which provides health care for the poor.

These are examples of what I was referring to when I said that systems already exist for people without health insurance to have access to health care too.

There are many many alternative choices of health care insurance available with different costs to purchase - so to that extent reasonable cost insurance is available.

I do not agree that the cost should be dependent upon the amount of money that one can afford to pay but instead dependent on the level of service that the insurance will provide.

I do not agree. For example, my family has dental and vision insurance in addition to the typical health insurance. I pay extra for this benefit.

If everyone has to have the same benefits that would either mean that I would not be allowed to purchase this extra insurance on my own or that everyone would have the same extra benefits at no addtional cost. To give everyone the same dental and vision benefits would be too costly. So in the end no one would have that coverage.

I agree that as long as the purchaser is paying the premiums on time that the insurance company should not be allowed to drop the coverage. But that is already a matter of contract law.

The same with not paying the bills - an insurance policy is a legal contract and if the premiums are paid on time then the insurance company should honor the contract and pay the bills that are specified in the policy.