So Let's See What Happens

[bafbrian]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged.

As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

[BanginJimmy]

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.

As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

[bafbrian]

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

I gotcha. IIRC, there is only a set amount for units that are CONUS.

I hope we can all agree on your post regarding the healthcare bill. No dount that the bill has many positive and negative aspects. Only time will tell what is the best course of action to replace that parts which are negative. One fear that I have is that even if we amend and change the negative aspects, the positive aspects might suffer as well. I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.

I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

[BanginJimmy]

I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Obama has already said he would veto any significant changes to the bill though. I think the only way to assure personal freedoms are not taken away is a repeal and replacement, not changes to the current bill. That would require heavy bipartisan support in the Senate though and I think that a large enough support base would bring that as Senators up for re-election in 2012 try to save their jobs. The protections need to be in the bill, but not the mandates to buy insurance. Not the requirement that companies write a policy on all comers, regardless of existing conditions, for the same prices.

Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.

There are only 2 people that should be making medical decisions for someone. Either that individual, or the eldest member of the immediate family. Obviously a living will that appoints someone to that role should be enforced whenever possible. Remember that without other instructions from someone with the proper decision making authority a hospital is required to do anything possible to save or extend a life.

I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

Because this is so prevalent in the medical field, the medical field would be most impacted. I think you could honestly see an overall drop of at least 10% in medical overhead immediately. The vast reductions in malpractice insurance alone would make a sizable impact. Add to that the offensive amount of money spent on defensive procedures and drugs and the drops in prices could really be dramatic.