PDA

View Full Version : Universal healthcare.



Lanie
05-30-2008, 08:28 PM
I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)

Shannon
05-30-2008, 08:35 PM
I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)


Poor Bridget.:D

Why don't you tell me why it is a good idea? Actually just start with how "we're" going to pay for it and forget all the "ideas".


(Good to see you here, kiddo)

Space Gravy
05-30-2008, 08:41 PM
I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)

It's not a good idea because while everyone will get their medical care paid for.........not everyone will pay for it.

Lanie
05-30-2008, 08:46 PM
It's not a good idea because while everyone will get their medical care paid for.........not everyone will pay for it.

So if everybody had to pay with a piece of their paycheck, would it then be okay?

Hillary's plan would have required that everybody buy healthcare, including the poor.

Obama is going to require that health insurance be mandatory for children. I can't imagine the poor getting out of that one.

Gingersnap
05-30-2008, 08:47 PM
Universal health care is absolutely possible. The only question is what kind of health care? You can provide childhood immunizations, prenatal care, trauma care, and treat some chronic diseases but you can't offer MRIs, expensive diagnostics, transplants, many drugs, extended physical therapies, or a host of other expensive services.

This is why the French go to India, the Canadians go to the United States, and the Brits go all over. Some small, wealthy countries can provide U.S.-style health care but they don't have a U.S.-style population.

The other big factor to consider is this: if the government is providing your health care, they have a vested interest in managing your private life toward optimal health. This is already happening in the U.K. where undesirables like smokers are denied non-life saving surgeries. While the smokers are the usual victims of any social crusade, the sheer numbers will soon enough point to the fat, the under-exercised, the drinkers, and the old. Eliminate all those people through a denial of service based on "lifestyle" and you may float the program for a while.

Lanie
05-30-2008, 08:49 PM
Poor Bridget.:D

Why don't you tell me why it is a good idea? Actually just start with how "we're" going to pay for it and forget all the "ideas".


(Good to see you here, kiddo)

Nice to see you Shannon. :)

I think it's a good idea so everybody can be covered.

While we can go to an emergency room any time we like, there's different types of treatment we can't get in an emergency room. For example, a person who needs to get their Epilepsy or Diabetes medication prescribed again needs to get very expensive bloodwork done. The ER doesn't cover that. They'll take you in if the Diabetes causes one to go into a coma from not getting their medicine, but not the bloodwork.

In theory, we have a system to take care of the poor on that one. Problem is we have all these standards that all the poor is not covered by Medicaid or Medicare. Either they're not far enough below the poverty line. Or maybe they're technically above the poverty line, but need every cent to make it with their kids.

And did you know that a person needing a transplant has to pay money to get on a list? That's ridiculous.

Lanie
05-30-2008, 08:55 PM
Universal health care is absolutely possible. The only question is what kind of health care? You can provide childhood immunizations, prenatal care, trauma care, and treat some chronic diseases but you can't offer MRIs, expensive diagnostics, transplants, many drugs, extended physical therapies, or a host of other expensive services.

This is why the French go to India, the Canadians go to the United States, and the Brits go all over. Some small, wealthy countries can provide U.S.-style health care but they don't have a U.S.-style population:.

The other big factor to consider is this: if the government is providing your health care, they have a vested interest in managing your private life toward optimal health. This is already happening in the U.K. where undesirables like smokers are denied non-life saving surgeries. While the smokers are the usual victims of any social crusade, the sheer numbers will soon enough point to the fat, the under-exercised, the drinkers, and the old. Eliminate all those people through a denial of service based on "lifestyle" and you may float the program for a while.

I thought all medical services were done under universal healthcare, but one had to be on a waiting list (another problem with UH). :confused:

You make good points. Do you think it would be possible for it to be like our school system where we have the option of private if we want?

Space Gravy
05-30-2008, 09:07 PM
So if everybody had to pay with a piece of their paycheck, would it then be okay?

Hillary's plan would have required that everybody buy healthcare, including the poor.

Obama is going to require that health insurance be mandatory for children. I can't imagine the poor getting out of that one.

Will everyone pay the same amount or will it be prorated like our Federal Tax system where a reletive few carry the load for many?

How far did HillaryCare get when Bill was President?

True Story.

I have an employee who makes $19.00 an hour (which is an excellent wage in this part of the Country) with anyone from 8-10 hours of OT per week. This guy has 3 kids with the same woman he lives with. When it came time for him to sign up for health insurance he passed on signing up his kids because they can get Medicaire since they are the children of a single mom who doesn't have much reportable income (She cuts hair). You mean to tell me a social program is actually going to go away and be replaced by something where people like this actually contribute to paying the bills?

I also grow weary of the tales of the poor uninsured in this country when the company I work for offers single coverage in an HMO that will only cost the employee less than $15.00 per week and family coverage that costs less than $37.00 a week and most employees elect not to take it. Why would they pay for it when they can somehow work the system to get it for free. Yet, they all have cell phones, internet connections, ipods etc....

Lanie
05-30-2008, 09:34 PM
Will everyone pay the same amount or will it be prorated like our Federal Tax system where a reletive few carry the load for many?

How far did HillaryCare get when Bill was President?

True Story.

I have an employee who makes $19.00 an hour (which is an excellent wage in this part of the Country) with anyone from 8-10 hours of OT per week. This guy has 3 kids with the same woman he lives with. When it came time for him to sign up for health insurance he passed on signing up his kids because they can get Medicaire since they are the children of a single mom who doesn't have much reportable income (She cuts hair). You mean to tell me a social program is actually going to go away and be replaced by something where people like this actually contribute to paying the bills?

I also grow weary of the tales of the poor uninsured in this country when the company I work for offers single coverage in an HMO that will only cost the employee less than $15.00 per week and family coverage that costs less than $37.00 a week and most employees elect not to take it. Why would they pay for it when they can somehow work the system to get it for free. Yet, they all have cell phones, internet connections, ipods etc....

It's unfortunate that some work the system like that. There are ways the government is trying to reduce that. In theory, I would think whether kids get medicaid would normally depend on all the income the custodial parent receives. And in a perfect world, she/he should be receiving child support payments from the non-custodial parent, which I think is partially based on the income of the non-custodial parent (meaning the father's income should be in the picture).

Not everybody works for a company that has insurance that you're talking about. If one is working at Hardees, they can't necessarily afford 37.00 dollars a week. That's about 160.00 a month that some poor people see as being very important to have. And some people have two part time jobs and not currently working a full time job. They don't offer insurance for those people most of the time.

To answer the original question, I'd like to say that everybody should pay the same amount or percentage. Thing is I don't think the flat tax would work any better than complete Socialism.

Gingersnap
05-30-2008, 09:42 PM
I thought all medical services were done under universal health care, but one had to be on a waiting list (another problem with UH). :confused:

You make good points. Do you think it would be possible for it to be like our school system where we have the option of private if we want?

That's how they do it in most places. Universal is "basic" and working people buy supplemental insurance. France is a case in point there. No sensible French person with a job relies on the universal care.

Some countries have forbidden the "two tiered" system and they are paying for it.

Basically, you can't have "all" medical treatments under a government health care system. It's too expensive now. Back in the 1950s this was possible because frankly they couldn't treat a lot of problems anyway and they didn't have the technology and drugs we rely on today. Got MS? Have a nice 2 years until your painful death. Brain cancer? Sorry. Autism? We have a nice mental hospital for your kid.

It's a complex issue.

Shooster
05-30-2008, 10:08 PM
Good grief. How can anyone think universal health care provided by the government is a good idea. Ask anyone who is a patient how they like it and they will tell you it is horrible. I have heard so many horror stories of people having to wait months for treatment even when they are in pain. Mass. instituted a "everyone must have health insurance" policy and is finding that to be so overwhelming to the system people are waiting for months for a routine appointment. People figure if they are paying for insurance they need to get their monies worth. We already pay for the uninsured and people who can't pay for care. We don't need anymore added to it.

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 04:46 AM
Healthcare is a right, not a priviledge.

Shooster
05-31-2008, 09:06 AM
Since when? Where in our Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that? No one has proven that we have a need for it yet. I live in a rural small town and like every place I have ever lived the local clinic never turns anyone away regardless of ability to pay. Our expansive welfare system provides for those who need it and many who do not. Why isn't that good enough for you?

Lanie
05-31-2008, 09:08 AM
Good grief. How can anyone think universal health care provided by the government is a good idea. Ask anyone who is a patient how they like it and they will tell you it is horrible. I have heard so many horror stories of people having to wait months for treatment even when they are in pain. Mass. instituted a "everyone must have health insurance" policy and is finding that to be so overwhelming to the system people are waiting for months for a routine appointment. People figure if they are paying for insurance they need to get their monies worth. We already pay for the uninsured and people who can't pay for care. We don't need anymore added to it.

If the boldened part is true, then why do they keep voting for leaders that will keep it in in the other countries?

patriot45
05-31-2008, 09:38 AM
If the boldened part is true, then why do they keep voting for leaders that will keep it in in the other countries?


Ha, an easy one! Once the government takes something over it never lets go, if it dont work, they just throw more of our money at it!

Shooster
05-31-2008, 09:45 AM
Look at how long it took to get our own meaningful Welfare reform. Then all the ads came out pushing Grandma's wheelchair down the stairs and kids out on the street. The people against any Government reforms are always very vocal. Usually they are trying to protect their own job.

Space Gravy
05-31-2008, 09:50 AM
If the boldened part is true, then why do they keep voting for leaders that will keep it in in the other countries?

A lot of people aren't one topic voters.

I honestly don't follow Canadien or UK elections closely. Has anyone ran on the platform of dismantling universal healthcare? I've certainly read and heard enough about reformation, but I can't recall anyone committed to dismantling.

I'm not saying our current system is perfect. I do think it's better than a Universal plan. Provisions are already in place for the elderly, for children and anyone, legal, illegal, rich or poor has access to life saving measures at little or no cost.

megimoo
05-31-2008, 10:04 AM
I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)

Dear, hopelessly confused,liberal Bridie, haven't you read of the horror stories of socialized medicine in Canada and the UK.They refuse to treat the obese,the smokers,the insane,the very old ,those with chronic medical problems and those who are terminal And one day you will no doubt fit one of those categories .

The only doctors who will work for the UK system are new from Bangladesh or some village in the Northern Punjab.In Canada when/if you have a serious medical problem they ship you to the USA for treatment as they have limited medical facility's and fewer qualified doctors and the ones they do have have a high mortality rate during surgery and in the UK you are totally screwed !

sgrooms
05-31-2008, 10:34 AM
Healthcare is a right, not a priviledge.

There is so much wrong with that premise I hardly know where to start. I suppose you are going to say that driving is a right as well? Same idea.

I have seen so much abuse in the healthcare system after working in it for 15 years. I have people come to me and demand that I take them to the hospital because they have the Missouri "Gold" card. They could care less that they actually need an ambulance, they just have no other ride so they expect you to taxi them around and the taxpayer foots the bill.

I have seen kids come into the ER at 3 in the morning because of head lice. HEAD LICE!! The grandmother that brought this poor kid in was waving his Gold card that morning too. If he comes to the ER, they don't have to go to Wal-Mart and spend the $4 it takes to buy the shampoo to get rid of it. The hospital provides it.

This is the NORM, folks. These people are not the exception.

LogansPapa
05-31-2008, 10:37 AM
Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Google: Sweden's tax rates. That's why.:cool:

Gingersnap
05-31-2008, 11:10 AM
What would be helpful is if we capped malpractice payouts, loosened up the FDA requirements on new drug development, and did deals with medical school students: 10 years in a rural or inner city clinic and your education is free (assuming you meet the entrance requirements).

Although a lot of people never experienced it or don't remember, there was a time when everybody paid out of pocket for minor medical issues. You bought medical insurance to pay for surgeries, births, and hospital stays. That's probably something we should aim for again. Your zit problem, moodiness, or snotty head cold is not society's problem - it's your problem and you need to pay for any treatment yourself.

Americans are tragically over-medicated and whiny. You do not have the "right" to a life free from various diseases and conditions associated with being an organic creature. Most GP visits are for minor, transitory things. Cut all that out of the system and costs would come down.

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 11:30 AM
There is so much wrong with that premise I hardly know where to start. I suppose you are going to say that driving is a right as well? Same idea.

I have seen so much abuse in the healthcare system after working in it for 15 years. I have people come to me and demand that I take them to the hospital because they have the Missouri "Gold" card. They could care less that they actually need an ambulance, they just have no other ride so they expect you to taxi them around and the taxpayer foots the bill.

I have seen kids come into the ER at 3 in the morning because of head lice. HEAD LICE!! The grandmother that brought this poor kid in was waving his Gold card that morning too. If he comes to the ER, they don't have to go to Wal-Mart and spend the $4 it takes to buy the shampoo to get rid of it. The hospital provides it.

This is the NORM, folks. These people are not the exception.
ARE YOU TRYING TO EQUATE DRIVING A FUCKING CAR TO THE RIGHT TO LIVE?!

I couldn't read anything after that right couple of lines. It's disgusting. I feel sick.

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 11:33 AM
What would be helpful is if we capped malpractice payouts, loosened up the FDA requirements on new drug development, and did deals with medical school students: 10 years in a rural or inner city clinic and your education is free (assuming you meet the entrance requirements).

That sounds awfully liberal.


Although a lot of people never experienced it or don't remember, there was a time when everybody paid out of pocket for minor medical issues. You bought medical insurance to pay for surgeries, births, and hospital stays. That's probably something we should aim for again. Your zit problem, moodiness, or snotty head cold is not society's problem - it's your problem and you need to pay for any treatment yourself.

Americans are tragically over-medicated and whiny. You do not have the "right" to a life free from various diseases and conditions associated with being an organic creature. Most GP visits are for minor, transitory things. Cut all that out of the system and costs would come down.

You're probably right, but whats the line between major and the mundane? You cant say cosmetic surgery is trivial because what if somebody gets in an accident? Obeisity is at least partially an inherited trait, should somebody not be afforded gastric bypass?

Space Gravy
05-31-2008, 11:34 AM
ARE YOU TRYING TO EQUATE DRIVING A FUCKING CAR TO THE RIGHT TO LIVE?!

I couldn't read anything after that right couple of lines. It's disgusting. I feel sick.

Do you have insurance , or will this one be on the taxpayers?

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 11:36 AM
Do you have insurance , or will this one be on the taxpayers?

My giant $0 a year medical bill is footed by Southern Illinois University's Student Center. My tuition is slightly higher because of the medical care provided on campus, but if I or any of my classmates got sick I think it's well worth the extra money.

Quit waving this "on the taxpayers" shit in my face, you'd be getting medical care too.

Space Gravy
05-31-2008, 11:48 AM
My giant $0 a year medical bill is footed by Southern Illinois University's Student Center. My tuition is slightly higher because of the medical care provided on campus, but if I or any of my classmates got sick I think it's well worth the extra money.

Quit waving this "on the taxpayers" shit in my face, you'd be getting medical care too.

Good for you, you're paying for it. Now, if only more would do that.

Why so testy about the taxpayers......they are the ones who will pay for it won't they?

Gingersnap
05-31-2008, 11:58 AM
That sounds awfully liberal.

You're probably right, but whats the line between major and the mundane? You cant say cosmetic surgery is trivial because what if somebody gets in an accident? Obeisity is at least partially an inherited trait, should somebody not be afforded gastric bypass?

But somebody will be denied treatment: that's the bottom line fact. In economic terms any "free" service is instantly opened to more or less infinite demand. Sadly, supply of services is not also infinite. To meet demand, somebody will have to forgo treatment or be scheduled to so far out that nature will take its course before the appointment date. This is what has happened in Canada, the U.K., and other countries.

Imagine you could call a crack security team to check out your house every time you heard a funny noise. Most of the time, 99 times out of 100, it will be the neighbor's cat playing with your head. One time out a hundred it's something important ranging from kids fooling with your stuff to an armed home invasion.

If the service calls are free, you will call them all the time but if the service calls are $200 bucks each, you'll be more cautious before you call.

There's always a cost/benefit consideration.

sgrooms
05-31-2008, 02:12 PM
ARE YOU TRYING TO EQUATE DRIVING A FUCKING CAR TO THE RIGHT TO LIVE?!

I couldn't read anything after that right couple of lines. It's disgusting. I feel sick.

Not a fucking car, just a car.

The concept is the same. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. There has been so much abuse by the citizens of this nation regarding healthcare that the people that do have to pay for it resent the ones that don't. The same concept with cars and car insurance.

I have to pay my bills. Healthcare, insurance, taxes, mortgage. There is such a divide between those who have and those who aren't willing to work for it that the resentment is going to boil over at some point. The govt doesn't subsidize me at all. Why is that fair? Other people get breaks on heating their homes, interest rates if they default, and the cost of medical care. If it is good enough for them, why can't I get it too?

Oh that's right. I work for it.

Kiss my ass.

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 03:51 PM
Not a fucking car, just a car.

The concept is the same. Healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. There has been so much abuse by the citizens of this nation regarding healthcare that the people that do have to pay for it resent the ones that don't. The same concept with cars and car insurance.

I have to pay my bills. Healthcare, insurance, taxes, mortgage. There is such a divide between those who have and those who aren't willing to work for it that the resentment is going to boil over at some point. The govt doesn't subsidize me at all. Why is that fair? Other people get breaks on heating their homes, interest rates if they default, and the cost of medical care. If it is good enough for them, why can't I get it too?

Oh that's right. I work for it.

Kiss my ass.

So you're saying somebody working 50 hours a week and barely making it shouldnt have the right to live? I'm sorry but I dont buy that. I dont believe in hand-outs or welfare states -- but if somebody is working as hard as they can to make ends meet they are entitled to health care. I will gladly pay more to know I live in a place that has those values.

The right to life is fundemental, and to compare to driving is pretty hilarious.

sgrooms
05-31-2008, 04:50 PM
So you're saying somebody working 50 hours a week and barely making it shouldnt have the right to live? I'm sorry but I dont buy that. I dont believe in hand-outs or welfare states -- but if somebody is working as hard as they can to make ends meet they are entitled to health care. I will gladly pay more to know I live in a place that has those values.

The right to life is fundemental, and to compare to driving is pretty hilarious.

The comparison is that you want the govt to provide something to you. In this case, health care. It is not the govt's place to do that. No more so than it is to provide you a driver's license. Those need to be earned. Think bigger or try to.

A lot of those people working 50 hours a week also have satellite tv, cell phones, go out regularly. You have to make choices and sacrifices for what you think is important. If you think that $100 cell phone is more important than your health, then it is not MY responsibility to provide healthcare for you. If you think that tv is more important than paying for health care coverage for your kids, then that is your choice. Again, it is not my responsibility to give it to you should you chose to waste your money elsewhere.

You are confusing "right to life" with "right to healthcare". I am not denying anyone the right to life, and you can get health care anywhere in the US by going to your local ER. There are better ways, yes. Preventitive care would stave off a lot of ER visits. But for those that choose convience over their own safety? Not my problem.

nightflight
05-31-2008, 07:18 PM
ARE YOU TRYING TO EQUATE DRIVING A FUCKING CAR TO THE RIGHT TO LIVE?!

I couldn't read anything after that right couple of lines. It's disgusting. I feel sick.

No you don't. Your feigned outrage makes me giggle though.

MrsSmith
05-31-2008, 07:19 PM
So you're saying somebody working 50 hours a week and barely making it shouldnt have the right to live? I'm sorry but I dont buy that. I dont believe in hand-outs or welfare states -- but if somebody is working as hard as they can to make ends meet they are entitled to health care. I will gladly pay more to know I live in a place that has those values.

The right to life is fundemental, and to compare to driving is pretty hilarious.

Someone who works 50 hours a week will not **gasp** die!! If he or she doesn't have insurance, he or she will go the hospital, get the needed care, and then set up payments with the financial office...just like any other large purchase. :rolleyes: Many people actually manage to pay their own bills without the need to provide profits for an insurance company. Dims hate those people because they aren't helping provide for those who don't pay their own bills. Therefore, universal coverage is required, so everyone has to pay for everyone, no matter how healthy they are or how little they need assistance with their own bills.

nightflight
05-31-2008, 07:19 PM
So you're saying somebody working 50 hours a week and barely making it shouldnt have the right to live? I'm sorry but I dont buy that. I dont believe in hand-outs or welfare states -- but if somebody is working as hard as they can to make ends meet they are entitled to health care. I will gladly pay more to know I live in a place that has those values.

The right to life is fundemental, and to compare to driving is pretty hilarious.

Stop trying to impose your values on everyone else.

Lanie
05-31-2008, 07:47 PM
A lot of people aren't one topic voters.

I honestly don't follow Canadien or UK elections closely. Has anyone ran on the platform of dismantling universal healthcare?

I think some have ran on a platform of being more fiscally conservative, maybe what we call libertarian like. I would assume that would be a threat to universal healthcare. I'd have to research it though.

Lanie
05-31-2008, 07:52 PM
What would be helpful is if we capped malpractice payouts, loosened up the FDA requirements on new drug development, and did deals with medical school students: 10 years in a rural or inner city clinic and your education is free (assuming you meet the entrance requirements).

Although a lot of people never experienced it or don't remember, there was a time when everybody paid out of pocket for minor medical issues. You bought medical insurance to pay for surgeries, births, and hospital stays. That's probably something we should aim for again. Your zit problem, moodiness, or snotty head cold is not society's problem - it's your problem and you need to pay for any treatment yourself.

Americans are tragically over-medicated and whiny. You do not have the "right" to a life free from various diseases and conditions associated with being an organic creature. Most GP visits are for minor, transitory things. Cut all that out of the system and costs would come down.

My doctor without insurance is about 120.00 dollars a visit. I really can't afford that every time I get sick.

It would help if people would stop going to the doctor for every dumb thing. I remember saying as a teen that I don't go the doctor for sinus problems and got asked why not. I was like "it's not important enough". I have learned it's important to keep myself under control or else I'll be going to the doctor for bigger problems related to my asthma, but the key is to learn how to keep control of your body without using prescriptions all the time. Some people can't do that, but most can.

sgrooms
05-31-2008, 09:09 PM
Some people don't do that because they aren't the ones footing the bill. It is the taxpayers.

MrsSmith
05-31-2008, 10:10 PM
Let Wal-Mart fix US health care

The discount retailer already has made major inroads into accessible, affordable care through lower drug prices, walk-in clinics and electronic record-keeping. Why stop there?

I know who can fix our broken health care system -- and who can't:

Not presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. He proposes a tax credit of $5,000 per family to encourage us to buy private health insurance.

Not Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She proposes universal health insurance supported by tax credits.

Not Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He proposes a mix of public and private health insurance with government subsidies to those who don't qualify for government insurance plans such as Medicaid.

I say, let Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, news, msgs) do it. Hold your guffaws. Stifle your impulse to scoff. Control those sputters of rage.

Wal-Mart has done more to expand coverage and lower costs in the past year than any government program to come out of Washington in the past 10 years. And I'd bet the new programs that this company -- known for stiffing its own part-time workers on health care benefits -- has announced in the past year will do more to expand coverage and cut costs than anything likely to come out of a McCain, Clinton or Obama first term.

>>>snip

Letting Wal-Mart run the health care system would fix many of those problems. It's a company that understands how low prices can build market share and thus increase profits. Furthermore, it's a company with a culture of cutting costs that has shown no compunction in pushing suppliers to the wall over price. The Wal-Mart motto ought to be, "Make it cheaper, or we'll find someone who can." I'd love to see that attitude brought to bear in health care.

My wish isn't pie in the sky either. Wal-Mart has decided it can make money by applying its always-low-prices strategy to drugs and medical services. For example, in 2006, the company first rolled out a program to sell a long list of about 300 generic drugs for $4 a prescription. It added 24 more drugs to the list in 2007.

Broad expansion of a generic program
Then on May 7, Wal-Mart expanded that strategy. Customers can buy a 90-day supply of any of 350 generic drugs for $10. In addition, the company expanded its $4 generic program so it now applies to more than 1,000 over-the-counter drugs, about a third of the OTC drugs the company sells, including generic versions of such blockbuster drugs as Zantac and Claritin. And a 30-day supply of generic drugs for osteoporosis, breast cancer, hormone deficiency and other women's health problems will sell for $9.

By offering a 90-day supply -- exactly the same length of prescription the mail-order drug management companies offer -- Wal-Mart is going right at the heart of the drug management business. At $10 for a 90-day supply, the Wal-Mart price is below the co-pay many of its customers face if they have private or company insurance.

The addition of over-the-counter generics is aimed at another trend: the increasing practice of drug-benefit plans to refuse to pay for such medications. Once you can buy allergy medication Zyrtec without a prescription, some plans stop paying for it -- even though a 20-tablet box can cost $20 or more at the average drugstore.

Think any of these price points is a coincidence? Wal-Mart, I'd argue, has studied this market and knows where the price points and vulnerabilities are.

And Wal-Mart isn't stopping there. In April, it opened the first of its walk-in health clinics in stores in Atlanta, Dallas and Little Rock, Ark. This joint venture with local hospitals will build up the almost 80 clinics already in place in Wal-Mart stores. The goal is 400 co-branded clinics by 2010.

Continued: Lower costs, less paperwork



http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/LetWalMartFixUSHealthCare.aspx

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 10:43 PM
The comparison is that you want the govt to provide something to you. In this case, health care. It is not the govt's place to do that. No more so than it is to provide you a driver's license. Those need to be earned. Think bigger or try to.

A lot of those people working 50 hours a week also have satellite tv, cell phones, go out regularly. You have to make choices and sacrifices for what you think is important. If you think that $100 cell phone is more important than your health, then it is not MY responsibility to provide healthcare for you. If you think that tv is more important than paying for health care coverage for your kids, then that is your choice. Again, it is not my responsibility to give it to you should you chose to waste your money elsewhere.

You are confusing "right to life" with "right to healthcare". I am not denying anyone the right to life, and you can get health care anywhere in the US by going to your local ER. There are better ways, yes. Preventitive care would stave off a lot of ER visits. But for those that choose convience over their own safety? Not my problem.

That is bullshit because I saw people trying to get by growing up and they spent every waking moment taking care of their kids and working but they still couldnt afford insurance. What do you have against the waitresses, auto mechanics... all those service people you take for granted? Why do you want them dead?

Eyelids
05-31-2008, 10:45 PM
Someone who works 50 hours a week will not **gasp** die!! If he or she doesn't have insurance, he or she will go the hospital, get the needed care, and then set up payments with the financial office...just like any other large purchase. :rolleyes: Many people actually manage to pay their own bills without the need to provide profits for an insurance company. Dims hate those people because they aren't helping provide for those who don't pay their own bills. Therefore, universal coverage is required, so everyone has to pay for everyone, no matter how healthy they are or how little they need assistance with their own bills.

People will avoid going to the doctor when they are genuinely sick because they are afraid of the bill. Thats America for you... the rich survive and the poor die off.

sgrooms
05-31-2008, 10:58 PM
That is bullshit because I saw people trying to get by growing up and they spent every waking moment taking care of their kids and working but they still couldnt afford insurance. What do you have against the waitresses, auto mechanics... all those service people you take for granted? Why do you want them dead?

What world do you live in? I haven't seen too many auto mechanics that are hurting.

We just got by when I was a kid. My mom worked two jobs, my dad worked long hours. It is called making choices. You don't get the cell phone, the tv, you don't eat out all the time. You make the right choices about where to spend your money.

If you want it bad enough, you can get it. I made less than $12,000 my first year out, and still managed to pay for health insurance, house payments, car payments, and a new baby. That cry baby shit just doesn't wash. I didn't have cell phones, cable tv, and I ate a lot of meals at home on the cheap.

Your still doing this "dead" thing. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that these people are not going to die. Having health insurance has nothing to do with living. Having ALS has to do with living. Having Alzheimer's has to do with living. Someone not having health insurance is not a death sentence and it really pisses me off that you think it does. Just because you think I should have to pay for you not making the right choices doesn't make it the right thing.

SaintLouieWoman
05-31-2008, 11:09 PM
It's unfortunate that some work the system like that. There are ways the government is trying to reduce that. In theory, I would think whether kids get medicaid would normally depend on all the income the custodial parent receives. And in a perfect world, she/he should be receiving child support payments from the non-custodial parent, which I think is partially based on the income of the non-custodial parent (meaning the father's income should be in the picture).

Not everybody works for a company that has insurance that you're talking about. If one is working at Hardees, they can't necessarily afford 37.00 dollars a week. That's about 160.00 a month that some poor people see as being very important to have. And some people have two part time jobs and not currently working a full time job. They don't offer insurance for those people most of the time.

To answer the original question, I'd like to say that everybody should pay the same amount or percentage. Thing is I don't think the flat tax would work any better than complete Socialism.

I've sold to government accounts for well over 25 years. I've seen the government at work too closely. I do not trust the government to administer a health plan. I don't trust the politicians to capably manage anything.

I really don't want my life dependent on some beaurocrats rulings on health issues. The insurance companies are bad enough; the government would be worse.

Lanie, have you ever been in a VA hospital? Some of the ones around here are pretty frightening. I've had several VA hospital employees state that they don't want their own parents or themselves getting care there.

I haven't worked all these years, paying my insurance, to turn over my care to some rotten universal health plan. I think much of it is an attempt to get something for nothing, the usual way the dems grab power.

I don't want something for nothing. But I do want our current medical system intact, not diluted.

Gingersnap
05-31-2008, 11:16 PM
That is bullshit because I saw people trying to get by growing up and they spent every waking moment taking care of their kids and working but they still couldnt afford insurance. What do you have against the waitresses, auto mechanics... all those service people you take for granted? Why do you want them dead?

Now that's taking it too far to make a point. I grew up poor - rural poor and I've supported myself by serving food. I was never in any danger of death because I didn't have insurance (and I didn't). When I broke my foot while I was a server I was instantly treated in the ER and I made payments to the hospital for the treatment. I didn't have to make a choice between eating and paying the hospital. I had to make a choice between going to a club or a movie or buying shoes and paying the hospital.

Nobody wants the working class dead but they aren't dropping like flies because ambulances refuse to pick them up and because ERs refuse to treat them.

MrsSmith
06-01-2008, 12:25 AM
People will avoid going to the doctor when they are genuinely sick because they are afraid of the bill. Thats America for you... the rich survive and the poor die off.

Well, I've always been poor. I raised 5 kids on my own...until 6 years ago. As a child, I was 13 or 14 before my parents had insurance...and it didn't cover anything until the first $1000 was paid. We always went to the doctor when we needed one. Always. Only idiots die off. If they'd rather die than run up a bill, that's their choice.

Zathras
06-01-2008, 02:13 AM
Stop trying to impose your values on everyone else.

He can't help it, he's a liberal. It's his job.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-05-2008, 08:54 AM
I think it's a good idea.

Everybody gets their medical care paid for.

Tell me why it's not a good idea.

Note: I promise to be nice. :)


Hey Lanie!!


The fact of the matter is that it all is paid for right now. The difference is who is paying and how much.


To start things off, the left is (suprise) blowing the issue WAY out of proportion. The claims of 46 million uninsured is just plain a flat out lie.

The Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

A closer look at that report reveals that 45% of the "uninsured" are only temporarily so - they quit one job and the benefits of the new job have not yet begun. Subtracting these people and the number of uninsured is roughly 21 million. The Census data also include roughly 10 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 11 million. A huge number of the remaining actually qualify for govt. health benefits, but simply have not applied. Others are earning good incomes but choose not to purchase insurance.


The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.



Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.



Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx


Upon a bit of digging the 8.2 million figure is from the Kaiser Family Foundation - a healthcare advocate who actually trumpets the larger number for funding purposes and has not included this number in their publications - EXCEPT the original study. They simply use the larger number because it helps them in their cause.


So the issue is not nearly as dire as the left would have us believe. What then for those 8 million or so who really do have a need and what about the rest of us??? What are the results of a universal system and what are the alternatives???


Lets look at those who have insurance now. The main problem we have is that we have unresponsive care, and costs are rising to employers - so they cut benefits/increase costs to their employees.

The problem is that the people who are affected by the decisions of insurance companies (we the people) are FAR removed from those decisions that affect us. The insurance companies use actuarial tables to set costs and dole out benefits. Everything is done to THEIR benefit. Why is this??? Because they are not affected by those decisions. WE ARE. The sheer bureaucracy decreases the responsiveness and the fact that we have little choice allows them to pretty much charge what they want.

Adding ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy (the govt.) only will add to the problem.


The solution is to bring the consumer of healthcare services back into the CRITICAL role of an comparative shopper. That means WE decide where our healthcare dollars go. We compare and force the health companies to compete for our dollars. This drives down costs AND increases quality as the companies scramble to earn our money.

Each state mandates all types of coverage be included in all of the benefits plans offered in their state. These coverages are incredibly expensive, but very few use them. This drives up the costs even further. Another HUGE area of concern is the litigious nature of society. Malpractice insurance is driving Doctors out of the business - thus decreasing the supply while demand is rising. The misuse of lawyers is a big problem that needs to be addressed.


The problems we have with our insurance are BECAUSE we moved closer to the socialist system. The cure is to move away.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the TRULY needy, we are better off having private charities help them. I have no problem helping them out AS LONG AS they are truly needy, but the care is far better done with people who are actually there to help instead of an uncaring bureaucrat. We should make it easier for charities to help people and make it easier for people to donate to charities.

If that is unpalatable to you, we might be able to provide assistance via state or local govts. for these people, but I would discourage this in favor of the private charity angle.

MrsSmith
06-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

" Do you think they would provide a sniper to take her out without any warning ,It would only cost the price of one 30.06 round and his 'snuff fee' would be covered !"

SALEM, Oregon, - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision. Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone,...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html


Welcome to universal health care. Infinite demand + finite resources = rationed health care.
All you old, sick, crippled people with complicated diseases or risky outcomes need to throw yourselves under the bus now. k thx bye
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=312

patriot45
06-05-2008, 10:31 PM
Now that's taking it too far to make a point. I grew up poor - rural poor and I've supported myself by serving food. I was never in any danger of death because I didn't have insurance (and I didn't). When I broke my foot while I was a server I was instantly treated in the ER and I made payments to the hospital for the treatment. I didn't have to make a choice between eating and paying the hospital. I had to make a choice between going to a club or a movie or buying shoes and paying the hospital.

Nobody wants the working class dead but they aren't dropping like flies because ambulances refuse to pick them up and because ERs refuse to treat them.

Excellent post! I never knew how to say it so good. I raised 3 kids and for two of them it was no ins. It was have it paid up front. I've made deals with hospitals before too. At that time tho, there were no big screen tv's, no real toys that we had to have, our big choices back then were chicken or hamburger for dinner again.