PBS: Sick Around America - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

***BelichickFan*** · 04-03-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

Willing to work? 1) Almost everybody is willing to work, this is a strawman argument like no other. 2) That's skirting the entire issue. The problem is what happens when you, like 5 million Americans in the last year, lose your job? We're bleeding jobs.

For those people the government can pool them together and pay for their health insurance. But they have to work for it. Cleaning streets, picking up trash, whatever. No work, no health insurance - unless you're disabled.

***BelichickFan*** · 04-03-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

It is not fine, it is insanely expensive and people without insurance go bankrupt or lose their homes for it. You really are beyond the looking glass on this issue.

It is not that expensive with insurance. I'm not going to get into the "without insurance" argument because I've already explained my position there. Regarding bankruptcy, the article I linked way back counters Barry's numbers.

***apple strudel*** · 04-03-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

For those people the government can pool them together and pay for their health insurance. But they have to work for it. Cleaning streets, picking up trash, whatever. No work, no health insurance - unless you're disabled.

And what other benefits? That is a dangerously slippery slope.

***BelichickFan*** · 04-03-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

And what other benefits? That is a dangerously slippery slope.

It is a slippery slope because I don't want to be hiring millions of people. Upon reflection, I guess a minimal work week for health insurance, etc, would be sufficient - exactly how it could work I haven't thought through; the point I'm trying to make, though, even if my system isn't fully thought through, is the unemployed man or woman who sits at home watching TV never thinking of trying to work does not "deserve" food, housing or health care. We earn those. I will admit that finding a way to allow all those willing to earn them is undefined by me but there are many who expect them simply for having a pulse and I'm not buying that.

***apple strudel*** · 04-03-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

It is not that expensive with insurance. I'm not going to get into the "without insurance" argument because I've already explained my position there. Regarding bankruptcy, the article I linked way back counters Barry's numbers.

This is a little disingenuous:

"A more recent study by another group, approaching it another way, indicates that in 2007 about eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical costs. That rings a little less loudly than “one every 30 seconds.”"

Getting down to brass tacks, that's 2,400,000 in one year. 2.4 million people in the country in one year. To me that's absurd and unacceptable. And it appears to be the best case.

***apple strudel*** · 04-03-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

It is a slippery slope because I don't want to be hiring millions of people. Upon reflection, I guess a minimal work week for health insurance, etc, would be sufficient - exactly how it could work I haven't thought through; the point I'm trying to make, though, even if my system isn't fully thought through, is the unemployed man or woman who sits at home watching TV never thinking of trying to work does not "deserve" food, housing or health care. We earn those. I will admit that finding a way to allow all those willing to earn them is undefined by me but there are many who expect them simply for having a pulse and I'm not buying that.

If we don't give them health care now then they're more expensive later anyway. This is widely accepted in both the public health field and even in the insurance/HMO industry. So why get in to the business of deprivation? It's worse financially, and it's worse ethically.

***BelichickFan*** · 04-03-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

This is a little disingenuous:

"A more recent study by another group, approaching it another way, indicates that in 2007 about eight-tenths of one percent of Americans lived in families that filed for bankruptcy as a result of medical costs. That rings a little less loudly than “one every 30 seconds.”"

Getting down to brass tacks, that's 2,400,000 in one year. 2.4 million people in the country in one year. To me that's absurd and unacceptable. And it appears to be the best case.

I think he got his wording wrong there because the total number of bankruptcies, according to the paper is between 1-2M. And he claims, with Harvard data, that 17% are from medical issues, which would be far fewer than the 2.4M number. Additionally you may not have read far enough when it talked about how a "medical bankruptcy" is defined :

"Beyond those who gave medical costs as “a reason,” the Harvard researchers chose to add in any bankruptcy filers who had at least $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses in the previous two years. Given deductibles and copays, that’s a heck of a lot of people.

Moreover, Harvard’s definition of “medical” expenses includes situations that aren’t necessarily medical in common parlance, e.g., a gambling problem, or the death of a family member. If your main wage-earning spouse gets hit by a bus and dies, and you have to file, that’s included as a “medical bankruptcy.”"

***apple strudel*** · 04-03-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I think he got his wording wrong there because the total number of bankruptcies, according to the paper is between 1-2M. And he claims, with Harvard data, that 17% are from medical issues, which would be far fewer than the 2.4M number. Additionally you may not have read far enough when it talked about how a "medical bankruptcy" is defined :

"Beyond those who gave medical costs as “a reason,” the Harvard researchers chose to add in any bankruptcy filers who had at least $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses in the previous two years. Given deductibles and copays, that’s a heck of a lot of people.

Moreover, Harvard’s definition of “medical” expenses includes situations that aren’t necessarily medical in common parlance, e.g., a gambling problem, or the death of a family member. If your main wage-earning spouse gets hit by a bus and dies, and you have to file, that’s included as a “medical bankruptcy.”"

I was a little quick there: the problem is that it's people living in families who declared bankruptcy, so some people are counted twice.

Even so, between 1 and 2 million people in one year alone, no matter how you slice it, is unacceptable to me. I mean, that's a bankruptcy just to stay healthy. And the number is bound to get higher in 2008 and 2009. The economy was still getting by in 2007.

***BelichickFan*** · 04-03-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

I was a little quick there: the problem is that it's people living in families who declared bankruptcy, so some people are counted twice.

Even so, between 1 and 2 million people in one year alone, no matter how you slice it, is unacceptable to me. I mean, that's a bankruptcy just to stay healthy. And the number is bound to get higher in 2008 and 2009. The economy was still getting by in 2007.

Again, I am not saying our current system is perfect. And I would like to see deserving people be able to afford health insurance - deserving meaning disabled or willing to work (because some simply aren't willing to work). Maybe going as far as having 3 years after losing your job where the government pays your health insurance until you get another job. Pick your details. But throwing the system to the government doesn't work for me.

***apple strudel*** · 04-03-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Again, I am not saying our current system is perfect. And I would like to see deserving people be able to afford health insurance - deserving meaning disabled or willing to work (because some simply aren't willing to work). Maybe going as far as having 3 years after losing your job where the government pays your health insurance until you get another job. Pick your details. But throwing the system to the government doesn't work for me.

That's progress: we're exploring solutions. I still disagree with the government as necessary bogeyman argument. Government programs can, and have, and worked, and continue to do so on a daily basis (I love my local public library). But I'll leave the rest of that discussion for another day.