![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I wonder if this is the one advertised as \"what can you get for 5 bucks? a burger? pack of cigarettes? how about HEALTH INSURANCE! call now!\"
Its playing in northern virginia, always cracks me up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@HRHKingFridayXX: Oh, yes, my husband's sick of my commentary on that ad. \"I'm not sure health insurance is a good place for frugality!\" \"What's $5 a day get you, a bullet to the brain when you break a leg? Is this the horse plan?\"
So is this like the health insurance Wal Mart offers but their employees mostly can not afford?
@AcceptingTheAward_GitEmSteveDave: I really take offense to people that don't know about Wal-Mart and make assumptions based upon missleading information. All of Wal-Mart's insurance plans include a catastrophic clause, which allows for a higher coverage rate upto 100% once past deductible for all medical services. There is no cap on that insurance, either... Ever. A lot of businesses cap max lifetime benefits, but Wal-Mart doesn't. Plans for this insurance start at 20/pay period and go to about 200/pay period depending on coverage, in-network and out, deductible and other factors. They also have flex spending accounts and full perscription benefits. About 90% of employees who are eligible for the insurance have it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
@Rarie: The plan you describe is mediocre at best. \"catastrophic\" is a nice, HR-thought-up term for \"cheap insurance\" - catastrophic doesn't cover well care or doctor visits, only the most dire emergency care that most people never use. Oh and lifetime caps are so '90's, I haven't worked for a company that had a lifetime cap in like 10 years.
@humphrmi: I had walmart insurance for a couple of years and they paid for all my doctor visits, all my perscriptions and anything else I needed. The insurance I have now is not much different. Only like 20/month cheaper. If you want to critic something like this, try reading the actual literature first, instead of judging without knowing.
@Rarie: I was critiquing the policy you described, I don't have any literature in front of me about it.
@AcceptingTheAward_GitEmSteveDave:
Yes...because if Wal-Mart didn't put shock collar invisible fences on townsfolk and force them to work there, those individuals would be working in a corner office with full health, vision, and dental...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87038-100x100.png\")
@ComcastRedwoodFlyer: If Wal-Mart didn't bleed local governments for tax abatements, free land and all sorts of other subsidies, lots of those people would still be shopping at local stores or smaller regional chains. You know, the ones that provide service and occasionally sell a product made in the USA. They wouldn't be any more likely to afford their healthcare, though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-382298-100x100.png\")
@AcceptingTheAward_GitEmSteveDave: And then they can say, \"Look, we offer health care to all of our employees!\" And the business magazines will gush forward with praise.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
One plan for instance, has a max of 30 hospital days at a max of $750
Um, we like to call that our \"Accelerated Healing through Positive Motivation\" option.
@rpm773: A one-day stay at the hospital is usually at least $1,000 (not including the separate charges from doctors and labs).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-349596-100x100.png\")
@outoftheblew: I stayed overnight in the hospital because I was septic with a kidney infection... cost $4,000 to lay in a bed hooked up to an IV, watch TV and eat crappy food.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580579-100x100.png\")
@fjordtjie: Correct. I think breast reconstruction is the only case that they cover breast implants. I also know that more and more insurance companies are fighting to get breast reduction surgery removed entirely from their roster of covered services.
I recently needed a new insurance plan and considered Assurant Health until I did some snooping online for consumer reviews. Sure enough, about 99% of the reviews were flat-out awful, with most reviewers claiming AS denied just about everything under the sun.
I seriously hate healthcare in America.
Sounds like you're welcome to give them your premium payments for the privilege of letting them tell you you have insurance, but that doesn't mean they'll pay for your medical treatment.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-562864-100x100.png\")
@csdiego: Here in MA I'd love a plan like that. The state's idea of \"universal health care\" is to require everyone to get it. They don't care where, and they don't help you with it. If you don't get it, you get charged a ton on your taxes.
I'd welcome a $5 plan just to say I have health insurance, but they don't offer those here.
@GuinevereRucker: I have state subsidized health insurance in Massachusetts. It's called Commonwealth Care and it is for people whose employers do not offer insurance and can't afford private care. I pay about $40 a month and I have excellent coverage. It's actually pretty easy to get if you make under $30,000 a year (which I do, by a long shot).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
Why, that's taxation without representation! Let's dump some tea in their harbor!
Seriously, that sucks eggs. How the hell do they get away with that?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
@GuinevereRucker: So you're taxed if you can't afford to pay for sickcare? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-270824-100x100.png\")
@GuinevereRucker: Exactly! forcing people to get health insurance is not the answer. Tightly regulating insurance companies would be a step in the right direction.
I was recently looking into personal health insurance plans, but gave up in disgust when I saw that one plan covered fertility treatments but not birth control pills. I have no words for that....
@cordeliapotter: It seems to me that the price of birth control pills indicates that they are something more suitable to being paid for out of pocket rather than being the subject of an insurance claim.
Maybe part of the problem with \"insurance\" is that people expect it to cover everyday costs, not just potentially catastrophic ones.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@Yossarian: What does the price have to do with it? Birth control pills are pretty expensive (they can cost up to $70-$80 a month). They also prevent pregnancy and birth, which all would cost the insurers much more than birth control does. It's reasonable to cover them as preventative medicine, which is what they are. If you don't want insurance to cover preventative medicine, then it shouldn't cover any number of other things like annual physical exams, screening tests, etc. In the long run it's probably not a good thing to not have insurance cover prevention because it means that more expensive health problems will crop up down the line when people inevitably ignore the preventative care because it costs too much money. (Of course, the insurers hope that by that time the patient will be on another insurer or on Medicare, and thus not their problem. But we should be trying to save money globally, not just for individual insurers.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-172611-100x100.png\")
@Yossarian: It seems to me that you have not paid for birth control out of pocket. Birth control pills are not all equal. Considering the number of everyday prescriptions that are paid through insurance, why should birth control be any different.
@xay: Yes, I have paid for birth control out of pocket, month after month, year after year.
I'd say one difference between birth control and everyday prescriptions is that people generally don't choose to need most everyday prescriptions.
@johnva: \"What does the price have to do with it?\" Price goes to the very nature of insurance, doesn't it? If it cost $80 to have open heart surgery, would you insure against it?
I'm not sure that equating annual physicals and screens with birth control is all that convincing. The incentive structures for one versus the other are completely different.
@cordeliapotter: Oh there are group plans that do that too. Any Catholic health services sponsored plan will pay for you to be knocked up by any scientific means necessary. Preventing pregnancy no way you harlot, get thee self to a nunnery!
I seriously hate the years we were forced to use a Catholic run health plan because it was the only employer based option we had. It sucked. They denied everything, forced us to file claims repeatedly and the terms you never get to see in writing meant they covered very little. The no birth control yet totally covered fertility was just the little jab to ice the cake. No contraception, no mental health coverage but fully covered fertility treatments, WTF.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24204-100x100.png\")
42 grand for implants? that's 21 grand a pop?
Aren't they basically bags full of salt?
/I'm in the wrong business
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1924-100x100.png\")
@lordargent: It's a spinal implant. I had two vertebrae fused. Also I think this includes the equipment they used to open me up in the ER. (It's my photo.)
Anyone have some suggestions? I have opened my own business but working the old job as well. Oldie will have to go shortly along with my insurance...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-358777-100x100.png\")
And this people is why we need health care reform!
Cue the Republicans saying that having Canadian-style single-payer health insurance will cause bodies in the streets because of no one getting health care....
Funny, but I've never seen that on my visits to Vancouver, BC...
@varro: The bodies Republicans \"see\" in the street in Vancouver are just (temporary) victims of BC Bud... another hot-button issue for them, I'm sure.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
@GearheadGeek: I think they are talking about Ontario... the Michigan of Canadian provinces.
Their suckyness is screwing over all of the U.S., as they provide the tragedies that drive our fearful refusal to stop the scam that is our insurance company run health care system.
@failurate: The only problem with our Canadian health care system is that nobody wants to be a family doctor and make lousy money, well compared to counterparts in hospitals and in the US, and now we are running very short.
@Bailen: The U.S. system also has a shortage of primary care doctors. It's a general problem associated with paying doctors for doing specific \"things\", like surgeries and procedures, as opposed to maintaining health. It can be addressed in some creative ways, like for example by paying doctors by health OUTCOMES rather than the specific work they do, but it's interesting to hear it's a problem in Canada too.
Single-payer is not a panacea: no one says it is. We just think it's much better than what we currently have.
@varro: I've never seen that either in my quarter-century of living in Vancouver, BC.
I've always had great experiences with the health care system here. One example: about ten years ago I woke up in the middle of the night with excruciating abdominal pain. Got a ride to the hospital at 4am, got a bed within half an hour, surgery within 3 or 4 hours, and was home the next morning.
The best part though was not having the stress of worrying about how I was going to pay for it. It cost me nothing out of pocket of course.
We looked at a private health plan from a supposed reliable insurer. $3000 a month and a $5000 deductible, minimal coverage, no pharmacy benefit. That was before they screened you for existing health problems and made you get a physical.
In regards to universal healthcare, most Republicans I know just spew the same fear-mongering they hear from such blowhards as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's as if they have no mind of their own - they're like sheep. Having experience with both forms of health care, I can confidently say that our way is definitely not the way to go, but it is the most lucrative, which is all that matters. It's why most insurance plans don't cover preventative health, because (as Chris Rock once said) they want to get you on the comeback.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
I have seen insurance that's cheap because it doesn't give much coverage and has a huge deductable. This type of insurance is worthless your better off putting that money in a high yield savings account and being \"self insured.\" On the other hand I have seen insurance that is essentially oh shit health insurance where you get a doctors visit covered and some other minor things with a prescript discount and then you have to eat up a 10k deductible, but after that you have decent coverage. This type of insurance isn't bad. Especially if your insurance has a pay scale with the hospital and doctor.
@sonneillon: Actually, that type of insurance can be bad depending on what type of health situation you have. If you have a chronic disease high-deductible insurance is terrible because it's not like you can just forgo treatment to save money. For those people, it's the same as just adding $10K/year to their healthcare costs.
Moreover, once you start analyzing the healthcare crisis overall, you realize that high-deductible insurance is really not the answer to our problems. These chronic disease patients are the source of most healthcare spending, and for them a high-deductible plan does nothing to discourage overuse of resources. It might discourage overuse of resources by people who aren't chronically ill, but those people aren't really the problem anyway with healthcare costs. And worst of all, high-deductible plans can discourage both healthy and unhealthy people from getting NECESSARY health care, or even make it financially impossible. \"Consumer-driven healthcare\", the insurance lobby's newest euphemism for shifting costs onto sick individuals, is a bad idea because individuals are inherently not good at deciding what healthcare they really need and don't need. Experts, like the doctors we pay to do this, should make those decisions, not untrained individuals who are worried about coming up with money to meet their deductible. If you doubt me that individuals aren't good at making healthcare decisions, look at the popularity of \"alternative health\" (essentially a scam, but one that sadly often substitutes for more expensive real medicine for financial reasons) and at the people who oppose vaccinations for totally irrational reasons (when the risks vs. benefits of vaccines are clear in people who don't have risk factors for negative reactions).
@johnva: Currently if you live in the United States want cheep insurance you either have to have a good job, have no job, be old or get one of the above options I mentioned. I personally think we should extend the old and poor peoples insurance for everyone because we socialize the insurance for the people in the groups most likely to get injured or sick and adding healthy people to the pool would bring down the overall per person cost.
@sonneillon: Okay, we pretty much agree. My main point is that the spreading use of high-deductible insurance in this country is a sign that we have totally failed to control costs. Shifting costs onto the sickest (the high-deductible idea) is not going to work, because a) we will end up paying for them, anyway, b) they are already paying more than everyone else and can't afford even more, and c) it's a stopgap solution that fails to address any of the root causes of why healthcare is so much more expensive here than anywhere else.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350988-100x100.png\")
Yep, where I work they added an \"affordable\", catastrophic plan and were trying to push it. It has lowere premiums but doesn't cover much so you would end up paying more. At least our HR people care enough about the employees to try and steer them away from that one.
For the sake of comparison, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I and my spouse have medical and dental coverage through my employer for about $100/month. This includes doctor, hospital, specialists, all prescriptions (including birth control), all dental work at 100%, plus some perks. I can add kids (when we have them) for around another $50/mo/each.
Of course, my taxes are higher too. In Canada health care is funded almost completely by the provinces. Last year BC spent 40% of its revenue on health care. The share of that for a middle class double income household making say $100k is $1800/year.
So full health care coverage for a middle-class family of four here runs about $350-400/month, with no paperwork or worries about being denied coverage.
I'm not trying to brag, just trying to spread the word about why the US should follow our (and the rest of the world's) lead.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-450539-100x100.png\")
@cecilpl:
Let's be fair, that is not bragging, it is misleading! Without writing an entire book here, you HAVE to look at the big picture. I'm sure a lot of people with your pov would also laud the Swedish healthcare system (where is it pretty much 100% free).
Let me relate 2 quickie stories from my own life:
1. Grandmom basically left to rot, since she was old and the treatment deemed to be too expensive considering her age; instead it was decided to use those funds for younger, more able-bodied patients who in theory, should be able to contribute more to the tax coffers.
2. My aunt has a surgery botched. Sure, they offer more treatments for free; but she is still permanently impaired. Oh, did I mention that you CANNOT SUE the doctor or hospital when you have these systems.
When you step into the hospital, you will most likely get seen by a doctor. But by the first available one (which could be days or weeks depending on their schedule). You cannot change doctors (unless you want to pay a huge amount of money privately) so you better hope that they are not having 'a bad day' and you pay the price.
Oh, and don't expect any of that fancy 'preventative' stuff either. Just because my dad got prostate cancer, his dad had it, and I am high risk; does NOT mean that they will test me or my uncle unless it is on my dime.
It may seem so nice and good...but there is a LOT more to it than the sugar-coated BS spewed by politicians and socialists in general.
@cecilpl: So it sounds like a great deal for the very young and elderly, and a horrible deal for the 20, 30, and 40 year olds.
I'm curious, though, about the need for health insurance through your employer. Isn't nationalized health care supposed to help those who \"need it most\" and can't afford the $100/mo that you are paying? What coverage do they get? (I am genuinely curious, seeing as how we have no exposure to that system here in the States)
@Scott Lepsch: Why would it be a horrible deal for the 20 - 40 year olds? That age group might not have chronic illnesses on the same scale as older people, but there are still plenty of 20 - 40 year olds with diabetes, for example. Make it easier for them to maintain their health and take preventive action, and you save a lot of problems in the future.
It's also the age when women tend to have children, and birth-related medical expenses can be massive, especially if you're interested in prenatal care.
@oneandone: The vast majority of young people are healthier on average, and go to the doctor less. They are the \"best customers\" of health insurance as seen by the insurers since they have the least cost and use the services the least.
Turned the other way around, younger people (like myself) can (on average) get by with a far less expensive plan currently in the states. So it's a bad deal for them in the sense that they are paying $200+ more than they would need to for health care that they likely aren't going to use anyways.
@Scott Lepsch: That should have read $200+ / month. Which is $2500+ / year, and a very big deal to those just starting out their careers and often living paycheck to paycheck.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-184636-100x100.png\")
@Scott Lepsch: Canadian health care doesn't cover orthodontal work, vision, general dental care, premium medical services (like nicer crutches or fibreglass casts), and some other stuff. A lot of specialists demand out of pocket.
@Ratty: Our employer based insurance covers the extras as stated above. All the little upgrades and nicer better \"products\" if you will, as well as prescriptions and dental work. If you are living in certain categories (living on government aid) I do believe the health care system kicks in extra to cover any really needed dental and prescriptions for those who cannot afford the extra insurance.
@cecilpl:
You had me at \"no paperwork and being denied coverage.\"
That's the one thing I miss about the military - being fully insured and not having to worry about anything.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11023-100x100.png\")
I ran into this back when I temped. My agency very proudly told me that they offered health insurance. I looked at it and came to the conclusion that I was going to be spending about $100 a month--a bargain!--for coverage that not only wouldn't cover anything preventative or minor (no prescriptions, no office visits) but also was going to cut off after about $20,000 in total bills. As I recall, that wasn't even yearly, it was total, forever.
So, I said, let me get this straight. Why would I pay $100 a month for insurance that leaves me stranded if I get a sinus infection *and* if I get cancer?
No answer for that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-335709-100x100.png\")
Max of $750. HIGH-larious.
My last visit was for the flu. I received one [1] IV bag to rehydrate me and then I was kicked out. Period.
Cost: $1600.
[Fyi: Billy Mays can suck on my empty IV bag]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-529488-100x100.png\")
@kolacek: My mom used to buy bags of ringers lactate (IV fluid) for our cat. They can't possibly be *that* expensive.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98237-100x100.png\")
@Oranges w/ Cheese: I can't beat that, but I'm holding a hospital bill where they charged me $165 for a urine pregnancy test. I went in for bronchitis. How is this REMOTELY medically necessary? (Fortunately I crossed out the language on the admit papers that said I agreed to pay for anything the insurance didn't cover whether it was medically necessary or not.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-280751-100x100.png\")
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27305-100x100.png\")
@t-r0y: the US healthcare system is already a joke. The Canadians and the Europeans already get better care for less.
@t-r0y: What lies? Do you think it's a \"lie\" that Americans pay way more for inferior health care?
@t-r0y: First off, our healthcare arguably is not the best in the world. But you're right; some people, who can afford it, get very good healthcare in the U.S. The big problem is that people who don't have good access to health insurance and such (because they don't have a job that pays enough to offer that as benefits, etc) have really poor health outcomes here in the U.S., not to mention the even larger group of underinsured (people who could have a serious financial problem dealing with the out-of-pocket portion of their health insurance should they have a catastrophic problem). When you look at population averages, our \"system\" does a really bad job at providing minimal levels of healthcare to everyone...to the point that it's shameful in a rich developed nation. Combine this with some other trends (such as the fact that the majority of babies are born to women who are lower income and/or younger, both of which make them less likely to have access to health insurance) and you can see why things like the U.S. infant mortality statistics are creeping upwards and life expectancy is dropping.
Now, you can say that you just don't care that there are tens of millions of Americans who don't get adequate health care. But you should just come out and say that if that's your view, and be sure to specify that you think it's okay to not provide healthcare even for infants and children whose parents aren't hard enough workers or however you want to rationalize this situation being okay. But keep in mind that having 1/6 of our nation uninsured is not really a sustainable situation. Those people will get some healthcare, but it will probably be low quality and cost inefficient (such as by going to the ER for primary care services). And that will begin to impact you, too: been to an ER lately? Waited under 3 hours to be seen? And like I said, it's stupid for us to waste the talents and potential contributions of all those people by condemning them to bad health even from childhood. Ignoring them, like you've suggested, isn't going to make them go away.
@johnva: he rather believe in Mr Oxyclean's infomercials is the answer to America's healthcare woes.
@ironchef: Don't put words into my mouth. We are not entitled to healthcare, and more importantly, the government has no constitutional right to take money from one man to give to another.
@t-r0y: I don't believe that \"entitled\" is the right word (since it's a right-wing fear-trigger word) but I do think that everyone deserves health care for both fairness/justice and pragmatic reasons. Only a wasteful society would not take care of the health of millions of its citizens who could be more productive members of society if it did.
As for the \"constitutional right\" thing, that's just laughable. 1st: the government does have the power to levy income taxes. 2nd: if we had a single-payer system, your \"tax\" would be just a purchase of government-run insurance, not exactly a traditional tax. If Social Security is constitutional, single-payer would be.
@johnva:
... I do think that everyone deserves health care for both fairness/justice and pragmatic reasons
Everyone? Tell me how a someone that doesn't work, though capable, deserves free healthcare (i.e. criminals, lazy people, some politician). Healthcare is finite resource, not everyone can consume it at the highest level at all times. I know I sound cold hearted, but I don't want to pay to care for someone that doesn't/didn't care of themselves -- I'd rather use that money on my own family. As for the deserving ones that don't have the means, they do get healthcare now. Putting the government in the middle of this will only make matters worse!
Only a wasteful society would not take care of the health of millions of its citizens who could be more productive members of society if it did.
To that argument, not everyone \"could be more production members\". Who shall decide who would be more productive and deserving of the limited healthcare resource? Our government?
1st: the government does have the power to levy income taxes.
Sure they have the power, but they don't have the constitutional right? Please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.
2nd: if we had a single-payer system, your \"tax\" would be just a purchase of government-run insurance, not exactly a traditional tax.
A government monopoly? That's a good idea. Say what you will about the private industry, but the government will do a much better job of losing money to waste and corruption.
If Social Security is constitutional, single-payer would be.
But Social Security is NOT constitutional. Again, please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.
@t-r0y:
Everyone? Tell me how a someone that doesn't work, though capable, deserves free healthcare (i.e. criminals, lazy people, some politician). Healthcare is finite resource, not everyone can consume it at the highest level at all times. I know I sound cold hearted, but I don't want to pay to care for someone that doesn't/didn't care of themselves -- I'd rather use that money on my own family. As for the deserving ones that don't have the means, they do get healthcare now. Putting the government in the middle of this will only make matters worse!
Here's what you don't understand: our current system is so inefficient and has so much administrative overhead that you actually pay more now than you would in a well-designed single-payer system that covers everyone! You would not have to pay more or get less! It's not a zero-sum game, because there is so much stupidity in our system that we could easily address if we had a single-payer system. Start with the fact that insurance companies are basically using 1/3 of our healthcare dollars on non-healthcare, and the fact that health providers have to deal with a crippling level of administrative burden to handle the differing billing requirements of dozens of different insurance companies and plans (hundreds, in the case of hospitals). And it's simply not true that everyone \"deserving\" gets healthcare now...if you don't have health insurance through your job, you're often screwed, even if you work for a living and make way too much/have too many assets to get on Medicaid, because individual insurance can be ridiculously expensive and is allowed to discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. There are a bunch of people stuck in the middle (some even have insurance, but are underinsured) who can't get good care because they make too much for government assistance but who don't make enough to afford their own insurance.
To that argument, not everyone \"could be more production members\". Who shall decide who would be more productive and deserving of the limited healthcare resource? Our government?
No, not everyone could. But we should give them all a CHANCE to be more productive (it's hard to hold down a job if you have a chronic illness and can't afford to treat it). Right now, there are tens of millions of people with no insurance. These aren't all a bunch of lazy irresponsible people who just choose to spend the money on hookers and blow rather than insurance. No, they are people stuck in the middle like I mentioned above. And if their health goes downhill from lack of proper care then they will contribute less to society. The money we have spent educating them, etc will be wasted and we won't be utilizing all our human capital.
Sure they have the power, but they don't have the constitutional right? Please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.
16th Amendment. I'll call it a \"power\" instead of a \"right\" if that makes you feel better. If you want to go the silly tax protester route and claim this doesn't apply, then you're way out of the mainstream and the courts don't agree with you.
A government monopoly? That's a good idea. Say what you will about the private industry, but the government will do a much better job of losing money to waste and corruption.
But Social Security is NOT constitutional. Again, please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.
I don't have time for silly faux-libertarian nonsense like this. Again, the mainstream and courts disagree with you. It was upheld on the basis of the \"general welfare\" clause and the government's power to levy income taxes.
@johnva:
Your first piece of evidence only states that Wachovia had a lot of stake in the CRA, not that it went bad.
No, my first piece of evidence indicts Bear Stearns (remember them?) and the CRA. Reread the article.
Your third piece of evidence states that Fannie Mae was expanding more into CRA loans. Also, if the HUD forced them to put that much of their loans into CRA, then the HUD is at fault, not necessarily the CRA.
You've got a point there, but the CRA helped the HUD. Did you read the whole article? Don't tell me that Fannie Mae, the HUD (and Freddie Mac) and the CRA were not used together to write risky mortgages. From the article...
1. Purchase CRA-qualified mortgage investments. To assist banks to meet the CRA investment test, Fannie Mae's Investor Trading Desk will create customized mortgage-backed securities for ABA members from pools of CRA-qualified loans originated in the banks' market areas (by other lenders). The bank would specify what geographic area(s) are covered.
2. Generate and sell CRA-eligible/affordable mortgage products.
...
They include a 100% loan-to-value mortgage called Community 100 targeted to low-and-moderate income home buyers, and the Fannie 97 mortgage, which features a 3% down payment for buyers with enough income to handle monthly payments, but not enough cash for a 5% down payment.
...
The government, and it's agencies Fannie, Freddie, HUD, use the CRA and other regulations to force feed policy (albeit, noble and worthy causes), but without any oversight and accountability. They can take huge risks without any thought of any disciplinary action.
(Here's more: [online.wsj.com])
Maybe all that isn't enough to convict, but it's enough to secure and indictment.
@t-r0y: [quote]But Social Security is NOT constitutional. Again, please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.[/quote]
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
@ironchef:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Social Security tax does not pay debt, provide common defence or general welfare. It may provide targeted welfare, but not general. It's given to those who have never paid and does not take the same amount (uniform) from all citizens.
Now, am I splitting some hairs? Sure. Why? Well, if the Social Security program was funded fairly (uniformly), distributed fairly and was actually solvent, I wouldn't make such argument against it. But it is unfair, insolvent and used by the crooks in Washington for anything BUT the general welfare of the citizenry.
It seems to me there are two reasons to be in favor of the social security tax...
1) to help ones self at the expense of others; or
2) to help other that need assistance.
You can be sure that number one does not fit myself (I live and die by my own means), and I will presume that it does not fit you either. That leaves us with helping others -- a noble cause. But why is it right to FORCE someone to help another? While I scoff at one who would not help his neighbor if it were within his/her means, I certainly wouldn't force them to help. What kind of nation are we that we must force charity? Shouldn't we teach this as part of our humanity?
@t-r0y: hair splitter.
You certainly thought it wasn't in the constitution when you made such a outlandish statement \"But Social Security is NOT constitutional. Again, please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government\" and you got called out.
You have to split hairs to save yourself from embarrassment.
It's CONSTITUTIONAL.
@ironchef: Embarrassment? No. Misunderstood by you? Yes. Do I care about that. No.
Maybe you'll dig up the Constitutional Amendment for the Social Security for me? Thanks.
@t-r0y: maybe you should actually bother to read the constitution before trying to claim something is not constitutional.
@johnva:
Now, you can say that you just don't care that there are tens of millions of Americans who don't get adequate health care.
I never said that.
But keep in mind that having 1/6 of our nation uninsured...
But they can still get health care.
..but it will probably be low quality and cost inefficient...
But that's exactly point, the government can't provide better health care. They can't run anything efficiently. Not even the IRS, they best source of income! Look at the military (necessary, but out of control). They may be one of the best run parts of the Federal government, but they waste billions! Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? And don't bother blaming Bush, it was government bureaucracy.
Effective health care will only come when government gets out of the way and lets the individuals and the charities take care of those in need.
@t-r0y:
I never said that.
But they can still get health care.
But that's exactly point, the government can't provide better health care. They can't run anything efficiently. Not even the IRS, they best source of income! Look at the military (necessary, but out of control). They may be one of the best run parts of the Federal government, but they waste billions! Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? And don't bother blaming Bush, it was government bureaucracy.Effective health care will only come when government gets out of the way and lets the individuals and the charities take care of those in need.
The government DOES provide better and more efficient healthcare, right now. Both the VA and Medicare are more cost-efficient and get better health outcomes than private insurance. So you're just wrong. And other countries do it just fine; why not ours? Do you think private insurance companies are efficient?
As for the military they are horribly run. They are not \"one of the best run\" parts of the government. The military is also among the most corrupt parts of the government, thanks to their huge budget and the war profiteering that attracts.
Your ideas are just wrong, and quite frankly, your side is going to lose on this.
@t-r0y: No Constitutional Amendment is needed, and the Supreme Court agrees. Wishful thinking on your part doesn't make your views correct.
I have healthcare through my work, which I pay $1200 a year for that DOESN'T go toward my deductible which is another $1500. I don't think I want to know how much my company is paying on top of that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-384699-100x100.png\")
just watched sicko again this weekend....looked on the box and saw it was put out in 2006,.....looked at calender which said 2009....*facepalm*
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
What's that supposed to mean? Why do all these people keep treating single payer healthcare like it's some nutso out-there idea that has never been tried, instead of the default model for the rest of the world for generations now. It works better by any sane metric, but apparently us stupid Americans will never make it work properly, I guess.
I doubt the political resistance will matter in a couple of years. It looks like the insurance industry is in a death spiral with less policyholders having to pay out for more uninsureds, the hospital industry drowning in red ink and the insurers' investments in the toilet. It will just take a bit of time for the whole idiotic non-system to collapse and the government will have to walk in and pick up the pieces anyway.
@ericblair: That's why the Republicans have \"starved the beast\" through tax cuts, wars, deregulated banks, and Medicare prescription drugs. Even if the Democrats had the balls, there just isn't enough money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-267279-100x100.png\")
That's why when you hear that the uninsured is a problem in this country, it's usually accompanied with the word underinsured. It's just as big a problem
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-236523-100x100.png\")
Those better be some bootiful bewbies!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93244-100x100.png\")
Well, as a previous commenter pointed out, it comes out of your taxes so technically it's not \"free\". It's just flat-rate (for those who can afford it). If you don't make enough money to pay for taxes, your fees are subsidized by the rest of the populace.
Doctors are paid reasonably well here, but obviously privatized systems pays a hell of a lot more to the physician and the hospital, which could be considered a \"motivating factor\" for ensuring the number, quality and caliber of doctors is high.
As long as the health care system depends and relies on the fact that someone else is paying for it these are the costs you have to deal with .
15-20 years ago we had a chance to control cost but now you have several generations of patients and doctors hooked on the insurance based system like junkies on crack .
Doctor sees a patient for three minutes-no problem-insurance pays 50-100 bucks for that one session .Patient goes to the doctor for the sniffles-no problem-they're only paying a 5$ deductable that would be better spent buying Niquil and getting extra rest .
Junkies on crack - all of them .
@failurate: Seriously. I don't know anyone with a copay (I think that's what he meant instead of deductible) for seeing a doctor.
He's also just factually wrong on what the main source of high costs in our system is. It's a common \"misconception\" that the main reason our system is so expensive is all of these people going to the doctor for silly things and wasting resources (actually, I think it's more of a persistent myth that is promoted because it helps feed the right-wing's desire to blame someone other than insurance corporations). Actually, most healthcare costs are the result of people with chronic and/or terminal illnesses. Most of us use more healthcare our final year of life than at any other time. Advancing medical technology, for one thing, makes it possible to keep people alive longer, which in turn means they spend more time consuming a lot of resources. So eliminating wasteful healthcare usage is not going to solve the problem, because it's such a minimal fraction of our spending to begin with. Better to focus on the big things like insurance reform, preventative care, efficient disease management, cost-effectiveness research, etc.
@johnva: Correction: I don't know anyone with a copay that small for seeing a doctor. Mine is $20 for primary care, $40 for a specialist (and I end up paying the latter one more often because of some complex issues I have to manage regularly). And that of course does not include deductibles or coinsurance.
coming from outside of the US, I have to say that the focus on health insurance here, almost borders on the obsessive-compulsive.
Or is it a case that the lifestyle is so incredibly unhealthy, that statistically, you know you're going to get sick - and when that happens, you end up bankrupted..?
For an advanced country - its interesting that the cancer rates generally are so high in America. (Not that anyone here seems to connect the dots between the food they eat, and degenerative diseases.)
I guess its easier to stay fearful over becoming sick, rather than applying self discipline and simply avoiding most of the diseases, by cutting out the toxic sludge that people here call 'food.'
Its no accident that countries which don't have the habit of 'westernized' junk food eating, also have massively less instances of the rampant diseases present in America. Not surprising.
Eating daily quantities of chemical preservatives, sugars and grease, is a guaranteed ticket to cancer and illness.
@t-r0y: [q]But Social Security is NOT constitutional. Again, please reference the part of the constitution that gives that right to the federal government.[/q]
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
@ironchef: It takes all kinds. I've heard of those nuts who say that taxes aren't constitutional (Arkansas never ratified! the kooks say... like it matters...), but social security? Hell, the term general welfare is even in the preamble!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343837-100x100.png\")
Implants on budget health insurance?
@Xerloq: it likely refers to anything implanted. artificial hips, knee caps, anything and everything put into the body. i doubt it covers breast implants.
@Xerloq: RTFA? Implants are pretty common for people who get breast cancer, and don't want to be depressed by their complete lack of breasts thereafter.
@Xerloq:
Apparently, it's the new Dolly Parton line...