My experience is somewhat different. I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My experience is somewhat different. I went to a clinic with a mild fever (99.6). They asked if I had insurance, I said I was paying in cash. They gave me a 65% discount. They drew blood and told me to take it to the lab next door. I told them I'm paying cash, and I got a $200 discount.</div> No insurance? I don't get it.
No insurance. It goes to show that if the patient deals direct with the doctor, the costs are significantly reduced. Doctor called me up in 3 days with the lab results and didn't charge me anything for that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No insurance. It goes to show that if the patient deals direct with the doctor, the costs are significantly reduced. Doctor called me up in 3 days with the lab results and didn't charge me anything for that.</div> Interesting. I have never been without insurance.
Health care is pretty broken in the US. But people who think its an example of the free market failing.....are wrong. Its an example of a non free market, falsely being called a free market, failing. Then, there is the matter of giving the government another large social welfare program to administer. Call me "less than convinced" that they'll be more successful with this than anything else they handle, spending wise.
For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>...if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> If she were dying, wouldn't you look to any means to save her life, if both you and her wanted her to remain alive? Would you just not even look at any possible service that she might qualify for, if she were dying?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>...if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> If she were dying, wouldn't you look to any means to save her life, if both you and her wanted her to remain alive? Would you just not even look at any possible service that she might qualify for, if she were dying? </div> she still may be dying, and we pursued every possible program to help her, because thats what you do to save your wife, and eventually, she qualified for medicaid share of cost, and doctors began to treat her....but, as bad as it would be to lose my wife, for my kids to grow up wthout her, its not the governments responsibility to provide what I have failed to provide....and if she does die because they resisted her so long, or if she had died without receiving treatment, I will be mad at myself for failing to provide the necessary insurance....the excuse I always gave before she was sick, was that we couldnt afford it....now i work 3 jobs to stay afloat....I never thought I could do what Ive done, and If I had faith in myself before, I could have worked a 2nd job and purchased the insurance she deserved....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> "Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> "Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe? </div> Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure. Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals. In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> "Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe? </div> Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure. Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals. In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually. </div> The foundations of the liberal world are built upon the social contract theory. Is it not true that you do things for the government (e.g. pay taxes) and you expect services in return (e.g. education). You expect to be protected from criminals, from the threat of invasion (less so now). Why should you not expect, therefore, to be protected against bad health?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For what its worth, Im a husband and father of 3 who can not afford health care for my family, but I do not believe in government funded universal health care....despite my wife needing help, I dont think it was the governments responsibility to give it to her....if she had died because of a lack of health care, I would not have blamed it on the government....</div> "Government of the people, for the people, by the people" (or in some other order) - from the Gettysburg Address Why is it not the responsibility of the government to give her health care? The social contract "theory" states that there is something like a contract between those who exercise power and those who allow them to exercise it. In return for you abiding by the law, paying taxes etc, is it not reasonable to say the government should, in turn, keep you and your family safe? </div> Our government isn't based upon this social contract "theory." It's been hijacked in that direction, sure. Our constitution, which is not a speech by a president, calls for the government to promote the "general welfare" of the people and its progeny, not to promote the "welfare" of individuals. In other words, government is there to provide an infrastructure for the people to use on their own to prosper in ways they see fit, individually. </div> The foundations of the liberal world are built upon the social contract theory. Is it not true that you do things for the government (e.g. pay taxes) and you expect services in return (e.g. education). You expect to be protected from criminals, from the threat of invasion (less so now). Why should you not expect, therefore, to be protected against bad health? </div> Frankly, I expect to pay taxes and not see much benefit from it. I wouldn't pay them if govt. didn't have guns and tear gas and prisons that compel me to pay.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Frankly, I expect to pay taxes and not see much benefit from it. I wouldn't pay them if govt. didn't have guns and tear gas and prisons that compel me to pay.</div> Best quote of the day.
Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....
You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div> Note the "general welfare" that is stated..... Since when is it the gov't biznezz to tell me I can't work for $5/hour if I am WILLING to do so. (hijack from another thread; and another sore point with me)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 29 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You really have to emphasize the universal part of universal health care. I feel that people unfairly assume that it means government intervention when its not necessarily the case. UHC should, at its most basic level, refer to health care being accessible to anyone who is in need of it. How that's provided can differ from country to country. I don't think the US government should tack on a health care program to its responsibilities at this point, simply because its bloated and financially f'd up enough as it is. It might work for Canada and many European countries but different circumstances require different approaches. That doesn't, however, mean a system that consistently refuses people treatment that is essential to their survival is adequate.</div> The problem (among many) with our system is that it promotes non-treatment of people. Insurance companies have an inherent bias to deny paying out money.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div> Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 29 2008, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im a constutionalist, I believe in this statement to its fullest: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Outside of those instances specified above, I believe the federal goverment has no business....If individual states want to get into other things, it should be reflected in their individual constitutions....</div> Do you not think that the Constitution ought to be updated. It was written in the 18th Century (right?) and some of the things it says reflects that. The beauty of the UK's unwritten constitution is that it can be easily amended to change with the times. When the US Constitution was written, UHC would have been scoffed at. Now it is more viable and proven to work elsewhere. I understand that you fully believe in the Constitution, but perhaps that should be changed more drastically than ever in order to improve the "general welfare" of the country. </div> I believe the US currently has the oldest Constitution in the world. I am all for updating it. Check my new signature...
