Sicko the movie

[Crabcake Johnny]

Yet this country still has to address certain things:

1) People working for companies that don't offer health insurance or only offer limited plans

2) People laid off who can't afford Cobra or don't have Cobra offered

3) People who are willing to pay yet cannot get underwritten

4) Low wage earners who are covered in full by their employer but cannot afford to add their family

 

[somarco]

Yet this country still has to address certain things:

1) People working for companies that don't offer health insurance or only offer limited plans

2) People laid off who can't afford Cobra or don't have Cobra offered

3) People who are willing to pay yet cannot get underwritten

4) Low wage earners who are covered in full by their employer but cannot afford to add their family

You have questions? We got answers.

1) Get a different job

2) Get a part time job while looking for a new job, buy individual coverage, buy STM

3) Get a job with group coverage, apply for HIPAA coverage, go in the risk pool (if available).

4) Get a second or third job

 

[Winter_123]

You have questions? We got answers.

1) Get a different job

2) Get a part time job while looking for a new job, buy individual coverage, buy STM

3) Get a job with group coverage, apply for HIPAA coverage, go in the risk pool (if available).

4) Get a second or third job

It should not be an employers obligation or expectation to provide health care coverage. That is just the way it developed in this country due to price/wage controls during WWII. There are however plenty of reasons why the government should make it easier for people to get health care both through free market and government involvement.

Winter

 

[somarco]

the government should make it easier for people to get health care

The government already provides free health care courtesy of the taxpayers. This comes in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, public "charity" hospitals, free clinics, etc.

Try again.

 

[Winter_123]

The government already provides free health care courtesy of the taxpayers. This comes in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, public "charity" hospitals, free clinics, etc.

Try again.

Well Medicare is a prime example of government involvement in the health care arena. What part of Medicare did you want to eliminate?

Winter

 

[somarco]

Well Medicare is a prime example of government involvement in the health care arena. What part of Medicare did you want to eliminate?

I never said I wanted to eliminate Medicare. It is a dysfunctional system as it is and one of the best examples for why the gov't cannot run health care or health insurance.

That is why the carriers have to come in and pay claims, offer supplements and basically pick up the slack where Medicare falls short.

You and others were calling for more gov't intrusion.

I say stop meddling until you can get what you have already working.

 

[Winter_123]

I never said I wanted to eliminate Medicare. It is a dysfunctional system as it is and one of the best examples for why the gov't cannot run health care or health insurance.

That is why the carriers have to come in and pay claims, offer supplements and basically pick up the slack where Medicare falls short.

You and others were calling for more gov't intrusion.

I say stop meddling until you can get what you have already working.

The carriers are indeed picking up the slack but you say that like it is a bad thing. It is not. Medicare is designed to cover basic services. People can then work with the private sector to get more coverage if they have the means and so desire. Similarly, proposals for a national health care system focus on basic services and it is a given that there will be gaps. That is true of any type of basic, no-frills plan whether public or private sector.

In regard to the alleged government instrusion, yes, I am calling for more government involvement in implementation a national health care system along with the majority of Americans now, whether liberal or conservative. All the scary things that can be said would also theoretically apply to Medicare but Medicare has also become a sacred cow among conservatives because it has met a need in an imperfect way that no one would dream of removing and survive politically.

Winter

 

[somarco]

Health insurance for seniors existed prior to Medicare but it was not profitable. What the government did by introducing health insurance (Medicare) is create a taxpayer funded subsidy which results in lesser benefits, fewer participating providers and more cost shifting to the rest of the population.

More government intrusion is not the answer.

 

[Winter_123]

Health insurance for seniors existed prior to Medicare but it was not profitable. What the government did by introducing health insurance (Medicare) is create a taxpayer funded subsidy which results in lesser benefits, fewer participating providers and more cost shifting to the rest of the population.

More government intrusion is not the answer.

Correct. It was not affordable or profitable based on the risks that go with the target population. In other words, it falls into an area where the free market alone did not work. Medicare did not result in fewer benefits for those who had none, and yes both government programs and private programs shift cost from the individual to the rest of the population.

If you believe that Medicare resulted in fewer benefits then you would be willing to explain to a group of senior citizens what a better program would look like. Explain to them the private sector/carrier options that are available to them with their social security checks.

Winter

 

[somarco]

Each year Medicare costs the taxpayers who fund the program and those who are beneficiaries of the program more than the year before. The beneficiaries have higher out of pocket, higher premiums and fewer providers than they did the year prior. The medical providers suffer from little or no increase in reimbursement and in many cases lower reimbursement than the year before.

What part of this equation is working?