Would you switch to Private Health Insurance?

[The_Doc_Man]

One of the reforms being proposed but being fought fiercely by insurance companies is the "pre-existing condition" issue. At least as a U.S. Government contractor, I have a special provision that protects me from that one. Because contracting companies come and go but the employees stay at the same post across contract changes, there is a government regulation that says that if the person was insured under the previous contract, they must be insurable under the new contract despite pre-existing conditions.

But that doesn't exist in private industry in general. And that is what the insurance lobbyists are trying to keep out of the law.

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[oumahexi]

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

No, not even remotely hard to understand. You get my vote and I've only been in America for six hours!!! (Not now, once, for breakfast...)

 

[Kryst51]

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

I agree completely, it is an affront to all those who spend years to gain their citizenship legally. (I think particularly of a good friend of mine, who has worked very hard to gain her citizenship.)

 

[Steve R.]

Good discussion that I hope will continue. My informal observation is that the health care debate is full of gobbledygook.

1. Are we talking about a health care SYSTEM or health INSURANCE? The two are totally different.

2. Health insurance companies are out to make money, therefore it is in there best interest not to pay claims or to limit claims. At some point this will this manifests itself as a denial of service. Yet we are being told that a program run by the government will mean less health care. This does not compute.

3. We are told that a government run health care system will result in a massive bureaucracy. Well, the existing private health care system is already a massive bureaucracy. Every once in a while I see a statistic that XX% of a doctor's practice goes to administrative expenses associated with filing claims with the private insurers. In theory, sure a government run health program will be a "new" bureaucracy, but it will replace the private one and maybe even eliminate the time/expense/staffing related to the filing of claims. (PS: Malpractice insurance needs to be fixed too!)

4. One anti-government health care ad implies that if the government were allowed to run the health care system, that you could be denied some "important" health benefits. So what, we already have that with the private insurance companies. Before we can have a surgery, it has to be pre-approved and deemed medically necessary.

 

[Fifty2One]

Well I can tell you that I am very greatful for living in Canada and having universal health care. No - it is not perfect - and with every scheme and system there will be those who abuse, cheat and defraud.
A lot of people never consider chronic illnesses when they debate the issue they are having in the USA and keep dragging Canada's system through the mud. If we did not have the Canadian system then we would have yet another burden upon our shoulders of deep debt. Being the principal caregiver in a family is very taxing on a person. It would be insurmountable having to do so and worry about fighting with an insurance company or begging around for more money for neccessary procedures or medications because an insurance company has decided it is not covered or extra or beyond the scope of coverage.
It pains me to hear of people having to go through this in so called civilized countries, perhaps it is time to put an end to the greed underlying these insurance scams which are being propped up and supported by governments. It is holding entire nations hostage.

 

[Alisa]

I don't understand what
a) immigration issues
b)Canada's system
or
c)UK's system

have to do with the current debate. It makes me see red when people act as if these red herrings have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with fixing health insurance in this country. If you oppose the current plan, fine, but please please PLEASE have a REAL reason for doing so, not some irrelevant bull***.

 

[Kryst51]

It's all relevant. You can use Canada and the UK to see how other countries have fared under national health care. also immigration issues are fairly important. If my tax dollars are paying into it for the good of everyone in my nation, I want to know the scope of "everyone" and be able to put in my two cents about how I think "everyone" should be defined, which is where immigration comes in to the picture. These things may not need to be the whole of the discussion, but should certainly be considered. Also, the OP specifically asked for the UKers and the Canadians to give THEIR input from THEIR perspective on THEIR national health care systems. That point being made, please add something of value to the discussion instead of lambasting what has already been said. If you want to hear something more about it, try redirecting the conversation to see where you will get.

 

[Alisa]

It's all relevant. You can use Canada and the UK to see how other countries have fared under national health care.

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what the current proposed plan actually entails? From your comment, I conclude you do not. If you actually care about this issue, and are not just trolling, then do about 4 and a half minutes of research on the issue before writing such blatantly false statements. If you can't be bothered to learn the very first thing about the proposed plan, why bother posting rubbish?

 

[Kryst51]

I don't see how my statements are not true, when the original OP asked for the specific opinions of people in those countries about their healthcare systems. No I have not researched it yet. I still have ideals, however, and still want to know how other countries who have national health care in place view it. There is nothing wrong with that. What are you opinions on it? What are some of the things you agree or disagree about? I don't even know what trolling means, so can you enlighten me on that as well?

Edit: How is my statement false, I am so confused. Are you saying that a person can't look at the UK or Canada as an example of National Health care?

 

[Alisa]

I don't see how my statements are not true, when the original OP asked for the specific opinions of people in those countries about their healthcare systems. No I have not researched it yet. I still have ideals, however, and still want to know how other countries who have national health care in place view it. There is nothing wrong with that. What are you opinions on it? What are some of the things you agree or disagree about? I don't even know what trolling means, so can you enlighten me on that as well?

Your statements are wrong because you are implying that the current proposed plan will nationalize health care in this country. The Canadian and UK systems have no bearing because nobody is proposing doing anything remotely similar to those countries do in terms of their health care.

 

[Alisa]

Edit: How is my statement false, I am so confused. Are you saying that a person can't look at the UK or Canada as an example of National Health care?

Sure, but what does national health care have to do with the currently proposed plan?

 

[Kryst51]

Your statements are wrong because you are implying that the current proposed plan will nationalize health care in this country. The Canadian and UK systems have no bearing because nobody is proposing doing anything remotely similar to those countries do in terms of their health care.

OK, But the fact remains that the OP asked for the opinions of the UK and Canada. And I do talk to people who have had the time to research and they all talk about it being a national system, so if my lingo is wrong, you know, at the very least, what I mean.

 

[Alisa]

OK, But the fact remains that the OP asked for the opinions of the UK and Canada. And I do talk to people who have had the time to research and they all talk about it being a national system, so if my lingo is wrong, you know, at the very least, what I mean.

No, you specifically said that the UK and Canadian systems are relevant to evaluating the current reform proposal. They are not.

 

[Kryst51]

Sure, but what does national health care have to do with the currently proposed plan?

From the Original Post:

Here is a question for those of you "Across the Pond" from the Yankee side. The question is for Canada too, for that matter. You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care. Edit: I didn't finish this thought. The OP is asking a different question from the one you think it is.

Look I am sorry things have gotten so heated between you and I. I have no idea what the current plan proposes, I am jsut responding to other comments. This is certainly a place to air opinions, and I can say mine as unresearched of an opionion as it is. If you think this discussion should go in a different direction please, try to redirect it. What are some of the things you think about the proposed plan?

 

[Kryst51]

No, you specifically said that the UK and Canadian systems are relevant to evaluating the current reform proposal. They are not.

What if I want to take their examples into consideration, or some issues they've had into my opinions, how can you tell me that that is not relevant. Why don't I just think the way you do?

 

[Alisa]

You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care.

This statement is patently false. The conversation cannot proceed from a false starting point.

 

[Alisa]

What if I want to take their examples into consideration, or some issues they've had into my opinions, how can you tell me that that is not relevant. Why don't I just think the way you do?

Because they have a national health care system. We don't, and won't.

 

[Steve R.]

Well, Guess what the New York Times just posted on its webpage: High Fees Common in Medical Care, Survey Finds

 

[Alisa]

Now thats breaking news

 

[Adam Caramon]

I'm glad someone started this thread, as I was getting ready to start a similar one. Personally I feel like those who do not want health care reform often use fear tactics to scare everyday Americans into thinking the wildest things imaginable about the outcomes.

I can't tell you the number of times I have seen a connection between the current health care reform bill and Nazi Germany. How in the world could such a connection be made? You tell me as I am in utter disbelief.

Alisa, the comparison between what our country's healthcare system would be like post-proposed reform to Canada, UK, France, etc., has been made so many times that it is understandable that some people would be confused.

Since everyone is putting out their brief synopsis or opinion of what the effect of the proposal would be, I feel fully qualified to provide my own:

Public health care, post-proposed reform, would have an overall positive benefit for: the uninsured, the under-insured, those with expensive healthcare plans, those with pre-existing conditions.

Public health care, post-proposed reform, would have an overall neutral or negative effect for: those with premium employer-provided plans, those with very rare and expensive conditions.

This is all my opinion, but it is based on reading dozens of news stories from a variety of media outlets, listening to various politician's takes on the proposals, and the parts of the HR bill I actually read.