Health care costs will literally kill the middle class

I lost my FT job in April and have been working PT since then, but without benefits. Since then, it has been costing $530 per month to maintain COBRA for just myself.

I get a letter today (Gee, thanks for the advance notice, assholes.) notifying me that effective Jan. 1, it will cost $741 per month to maintain my single coverage. That's an increase of $184 per month. :wow:

At that amount, health care for just myself falls close to the range of my monthly mortgage payment.

With chronic, pre-extisting health conditions that require maintenance meds and lands me in the doctor's office about once every two months, going without is not an option.

I know I'm not alone. I work, earn a respectable living and am well out of poverty. However, this situation sure threatens to put me there quite quickly. And, I know I'm not alone.

THIS is the issue that the Dems must address if they want to win office in O6 and 08. With this issue having ruined and threatening to ruin so many lives, I think people are ready for some sensible solutions. It's no longer somebody else's problems. It's now hitting them in their pocketbooks and I think they will listen.

So, what are some concrete proposals that we can put out there that will help fix the situation?

is a sure winner. It seems the Democrats just toy with the issue or just give it lip service.
If they really ran hard with this as a first tier issue... we would win big IMO.

to them. All they want is to be the top and others to be the bottom.

dialogue. The insurance companies went after her like she was the anti-Christ. And don't think that the insurance companies won't rally again. Health care insurance is big money (24% going to the insurance companies for overhead.)

:shrug:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-37.htm

An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care, and no employer refuses to create new jobs or cuts back on current jobs because of the high cost of providing health insurance.

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July. I propose that as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life.

It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.

For those who prefer private insurance, we will offer comparable coverage under the same range of private insurance plans already available to Congress. I can think of nothing more cynical or hypocritical than a Member of Congress who gives a speech denouncing health care for all, then goes to his doctor for a visit paid for by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

I call this approach Medicare for All, because it will free all Americans from the fear of crippling medical expenses and enable them to seek the best possible care when illness strikes.

The battle to achieve Medicare for All will not be easy. Powerful interests will strongly oppose it, because they profit immensely from the status quo. Right wing forces will unleash false attack ads ranting against socialized medicine and government-run health care.

But those attacks are a generation out of date - retreads of the failed campaign that delayed Medicare in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, we are immunized against such attacks by the obvious success of Medicare. It is long past time to extend that success to all.

It is bullshit. Noone takes on the insurance industry - ever. It is way past time, this is why we are in this mess. It begs the question - why? Why do medical/health insurance costs take such huge leaps - every year and it is just the accepted thing?

It doesn't take a genius to see that some sort of organized crime is behind the skyrocketing premiums coupled with the drastic reduction of benefits.

That "overhead" that they claim justifies the exorbitant costs of health care is really going to gangsters, and if you don't believe me, just look at the numbers yourself.

That would be a start:)

That's what has frustrated me about insurance for decades. EVERYONE is part of a 'group'.

Paid for by excise taxes on foreign labor products and a progressive income tax maxing out at 80% over one million.

It is discussed from time to time but no one ever really has answers. What would they like us to do? Die in the streets before they come up with a plan.

the favorite plan of many recent Dem candidates is somewhat dishonest. It does little to help (health care for children is relatively inexpensive and kids don't often get sick) and is mostly a political manipulation to appeal to voters.

I said "Why do we care so much about insuring orphans?" Whenever I say that, no one seems to get it, but I am making your point exactly - health care for kids is *usually inexpensive overall." My point is, why don't we insure their parents, too, because if we don't, we are creating a generation of orphans. Does anyone understand the point I am making?

Eventually, we are going to look at our slowly draining tub of water, realize that we have turned the taps on as far as they will go, and be forced to consider the option of putting the damned PLUG in.

We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it. --Dennis Kucinich. (www.kucinich.us)

senior's? Aren't they all equally important??

Plus, many states already have programs in place for child health care. None have adult and senior health care plans.

You have it exactly right.

But don't actually smoke the cigar...

compensated like they were in 1982 or so ... in other words, pay them at the same 'increased' rate as minimum wage workers have seen.... and then take the excess money and use it to pay for health care...likely would cover most people in the country, I think.

most preventive medical procedures are out of the reach of those 45m who have no coverage at all, and even those who do have some form of insurance (like you, prolesunited) won't be able to afford it much longer. The health of any nation is its most precious resource, and the US is falling further and further behind compared to other industrialized countries and even to some developing ones. SG

tomorrow. That is nowhere near the situation you are in, but with a monthly prescription I need, it all adds up, and my salary isn't increasing accordingly. I make more money than 5 years ago, but not in comparison to what I have to pay in cost of living changes. I just keep going backwards. Something needs to happen. It's hurting me, and I HAVE INSURANCE. Pitifiul. My prescription would be $100 a month without insurance. Couldn't pay it in that case.

Olafr

AND $10,000 per year for healthcare insurance for the 4 of us.

complain anymore. Just...wow.

Olafr

We pay over 900 a month for healthcare premiums through hubby's job for a family of 3.

We are all under taxed. I think we should all be paying a 50% tax and get government paid health care.

Also the taxes on gasoline is not high enough. It should be at least $1.00 a gallon. That would really encourage conservation.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Surya,

I don't think he was giving a freeper reply on purpose, so give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a moderator here, but I do know that we're not really supposed to call other members freepers like that. I did it too when I was pretty new, but older members corrected me. If you have problems with what someone is posting, you can hit the alert link to report the post, or you can pm the person & sort it out with them if that's what you wanna do.

you may be right about his freeper status, but the fact that he/she didn't even attempt to clear up the issue leads me to wonder...SG

We're not under taxed. Nor are we over taxed - though certain classes can and should pay more in taxes. IMHO universal healthcare is a right and we are taxed sufficiently to afford universal healthcare. Unfortunately government spending is mis-prioritized and completely out of control. Additionally we have republicans allowing industry lobbyists to craft legislation wholly beneficial to their industry which Congress then passes. I'm thinking of the Medicare-Prescription Drug act which should be abolished before it's implemented and revisited. It costs Medicaid 2 - 3% to administer the program whereas the private insurance companies have admin. costs starting at 20% and going up from there.

Universal Healthcare is a possiibility and it can be accomplished without bankrupting the country. Indeed - it's very likely more expensive to continue in the current model than to move to a Universal model.

... whose foreign entitlements are enforced by our military. It's an appalling abuse of a "defense" force to send it on missions to sovereign nations in order to enforce some Chiquita Banana entitlement. One-hundred years ago it was a fruit company - today it's petrochemicals. Global corporations that want to hire people or own property in foreign countries should damned well move there!

While the copay for doctor's visits will increase from $20 to $25. The deductible will go up by 50%.
I think enough Americans have seen how out of control health care and insurance costs have gotten that we are more ready for nationalized health care than 10 years ago. I think that industry, minus insurance companies of course, is getting fed up too with having to pay more for their employees getting less. I think that this could be a winning issue too.

That's the bush plan.

Couple what you've said to the fact that American diets are getting more unhealthy every day, leading to more disease. Couple that with bush's assault on the environment - your unhealthy body must now struggle to survive in an ever-more polluted environ! Death all around...and at an earlier age!

But, have no fear! bushco has rigged the system for their patrons! Once you're dead, the credit card companies can step in and liquidate your assets (home, belongings) to pay off your debts! Like Scrooge and the charwoman, your death benefits others! With any luck things will be even worse for your descendents who - 2 or 3 generations down the line - will gladly accept their lives as serfs working for some mega corporation in exchange for free amputations at the local barber's salon!

said that all along. I mailed in that Medicare-D form and have heard nothing from them. In the meantime my doctor took me off an antidepressant I have been on for years and put me on one that is generic. Generics--low price, right? A 30 day supply of this generic is $65.00! Hells bells, that is enough to make me more depressed. No telling what my BP medicine will soar to. $65.00 is a lot of money when your only income is Soc. Sec.

Unfortunately, a single payer system is probably the only realistic solution and I don't know who has the will to try to get that put in place.

With the baby boom generation moving into the years where having chronic and expensive to treat conditions is more and more common so many of us requiring maintenance medication, I can't honestly see how insurance can fill our needs and be profitable at the same time.

My husband and I are lucky enough to be working and fully insured at the moment. Just the co-pays on his medications come to several hundred dollars a month. My co-pays are lower, so despite the fact that I also have expensive medications that I need, I don't have a lot out of pocket expenses. As long as I keep this particular job. There is no way we could handle our medical expenses or afford insurance on our own. This is true of an awful lot of people our age. I just don't think that medical insurance should be in the profit-making sector.

The only long term solution is a serious program of conditioning, strength-building, flexibility enhancement, and nutrition including - but not limited to - APFT batteries (situps, pushups, 2 mile run), weight lifting, swimming, yoga, and meal planning. Routine physical maintenance coupled with a robust, close-to-earth diet is the first step in lifelong health.

There is no short term solution the government can mandate. We as adults must fix ourselves, so that we no longer strain the medical instituion with "problems" that our bodies could itself repair. See the above to get started on that.

Insurance is for catastrophic events. Maintenance medication under the insurance system we have today is what has made it universally unaffordable.

I could be six and observe that my obese father is a strain on my physically fit mother, because she's always feeding him, slugging him around, and so on. I could be 14 and discover through substantial medical research the benefit of physical routine and proper nutrition. I could be 35 and realize that a life of smoking, eating fast food, sedentary provisions, college injuries, and so on all mean absolutely nothing if I want to improve myself today. Or I could be 100 years old and know that a life spent eating close-to-earth and exercising my body allowed me to remain so long on the planet.

My point, for a long term solution, is that We the People must fix ourselves. The government exists to support us as we do so, and to help us when we can't. The government is not the first line of defense for a healthy populace; We the People are.

and youngish would probably not recognize that not everything can be controlled in that manner.

In my reply, I tried to clarify that the FIRST line of defense was strong personal health. Adults need to always strive to improve themselves -- physically, mentally, and spiritually -- before they look to corporations and the government to do so.

I appreciate your position, but regardless of what I am, I am not naive enough to believe that there is only ONE solution. I simply believe that it begins with the individual, and goes up to the family, the community, the state, and the nation from there.

(on edit: remove the shouting and add clarification)

Nation wide, too. State programs like TennCare are overburdened.

To me, that means exercise, proper nutrition, and a working knowledge of your own body in particular and medicine in general. To have that work effectively takes a long time, and it must start by introducing children to the joys of it.

I believe the burden of the state would be relieved by closer-to-home methods, like community health programs. This doesn't mean, nor am I saying, that a preventative care system is unnecessary. Quite the contrary, it's important to educate and assist people in their own preventative care and furthermore to help those who simply cannot help themselves (genetics, injury, etc).

Those are, in my opinion, all part of a comprehensive plan to keep the population fit ("proactive") rather than treat after the fact ("reactive").

I trust diabetes/heart problems/glaucoma/liver or kidney problems/cancer/tooth decay/arthritis/depression/leukemia/etc. don't run in your family?

I trust, also, that you've somehow got a lock on avoiding life-altering accidents?

You are one lucky S.O.B.!

I think your proposal is interesting and almost Tom Cruise-like. But the reality IS that people become broken down when they get older, or they have genetic maladies, or have accidents, or catch diseases.

Yes, they do break down. Yes there are genetic factors. Accidents do happen. And so do diseases. All well and good, and their needs to be affordable medical systems to meet those needs.

My contention is, however, that the number of break downs, the number of genetic issues, the number of accidents, and the number of diseases will decrease with a universally healthier population. That number will not decrease linearly to zero, of course, but will gradually lower, probably logarithmically, as the population's fitness improves.

Repeating the same meme about diet and exercise curing all ills is cruel and shortsighted and a major reason why we don't have affordable health care for all. It makes it easier for our leaders to blame the victims.

Its wrong.

"I believe the burden of the state would be relieved by closer-to-home methods, like community health programs. This doesn't mean, nor am I saying, that a preventative care system is unnecessary. Quite the contrary, it's important to educate and assist people in their own preventative care and furthermore to help those who simply cannot help themselves (genetics, injury, etc)."

I never once said it will "cure" "all" ills. You said that. If I wasn't clear enough, I apologize. My contention (def: "An assertion put forward in argument") is that regular exercise, closer-to-earth foods, and a bit more of focus on healthful living (including self-awareness and medicine) will HELP improve the overall FITNESS of society.

I do appreciate you noticing that I am not "blaming" anyone for their existing medical conditions. History is history. I am, however, suggesting that everyone can seize the day and start making their lives healhier with diet and exercise.

as the population gets healthier, the opposite happens -- there are more people living w. pain and w. disability and w. conditions that require lifelong treatment including expensive medicines -- because we're living twice as freakin long as we did in 1900

your suggestion is silly, we already know that the healthier we are and the longer we live, the more physical challenges we have to face & the more demands we'll make over our lifetimes from the health care system

my friend who died of lung cancer at 54 never took a dime from social security or from medicare, he didn't live long enough

people quitting smoking is cited for one of the reasons we are supposedly not able to fund social security or medicare as easily as predicted in the past, that is the classic example of a huge step taken by the majority to increase health, with the net result being yes people do live longer but they cost the system a lot more money

don't smoke, don't have unprotected sex, exercise, eat right -- that's all great things to do but it will NOT mean you spend less over your lifetime on healthcare, it means it's likely you'll spend more

Tobacco companies got a whole buttload of bad publicity for recommending a policy to the Czech government of promoting smoking to save money on pension and health care costs for old people. They might have been antisocial creeps, but they were right. Bad habits have no effect on the health care expenses of young people, and they tend to kill people off before they get really old.

Fit.
And dropped dead.

mild depression, cataracts, torn shoulder cartilage, birthing babies, having tubes tied, migraines, and the occasional chilhood rash and in LouLou's case a broken bone (she's not as good on rolerblades as she thinks she is...) and we've consumed a bout a brazillion dollars in healthcare through NO FAULT of our own.

Exercise will improve:
* Mild depression
* Migraines

Diet will improve:
* Rashes
* Migraines

Medical or homepathic assistance needed for:
* Cataracts
* Torn cartillege
* Birth
* Bone repair

(Technically, we could all handle the last three without the medical establishment, but let's say it's good to have doctors do those)

So, I contend that some of those dollars spent could be better spent at home working to repair yourself. But, it will take some time to get us there, as knowledge acquisition and rehabituation are key; that's why we need to start with our precious youth.

not to be mean, but okay, i will be mean, i hope to god you suffer from some of these persistent rashes i've seen one day

it is sick and cruel to blame the victim's diet when victim was born w. a rash, in my case, and has been on every diet in existence, diet don't work, the doctors don't even pretend they work

nothing really works except steroids, which have serious side effects if over-used

i hate to get personal but i've had to put up with too much crap because of this attitude that if you look different, it's your own fault

since your statement is untrue, i can't help feeling you pulled it out of your butt because you're prejudiced against people who are not pretty, and that just pisses me off, frankly

i'd also like to see you remove your own damn cataracts w. homeopathy, that is just sheer evil and would result in unnecessary blindness, removing cataracts is damn simple eye surgery and should not be withheld for reasons of $$$

First, I have not found fault with anyone because of the way they are; my apologies should my verbage have come across that way. However, I do hold everyone responsible for their own well-being. You will note that I did not say I hold them responsible for their "physical condition," and there is a huge difference between someone's "physical condition" (which is genetics, plus choices) and their "well being" (which is what they're doing to maintain their physical, mental, and emotional health).

Second, you know roughly zero about me. You have no idea what I have or have not suffered. I can, however, contend (as I have in previous threads) that diet has improved my skin conditions and exercise has helped me enormously when I am depressed. All I am suggesting communities do is HELP people to understand their bodies better, so people can keep themselves healthier longer and to look inward for self support FIRST. Should that fail, then look to the community SECOND. If diet doesn't work for you, and you've tried, then you go and see someone.

I have a similar contention with cars, computers, home repair, and just about everything else. People find it so easy to "call someone to fix it" without at least attempting to understand the problem first. Before you can have an expert effectively help you, you have to be intelligent enough to articulate your problem clearly.

In short, "Know thyself."

Finally, I never once said that cataracts could be solved homeopathically. Here's what I said:

"Medical or homepathic assistance needed for:
* Cataracts
* Torn cartillege
* Birth
* Bone repair

(Technically, we could all handle the last three without the medical establishment, but let's say it's good to have doctors do those)"

For every item in that list EITHER medical OR homeopathic assitance could be used. Cataracts falls into the medical set. That's further bolstered by the parenthetical, which asserts that the last three are purely homeopathic.

And let me just toss this out as food for thought. To "hope" that someone will "suffer" will likely get you in trouble one day.

telling people to take a deep breath is a deliberate rudeness but you knew that

telling a person born w. a genetic condition that "knowing themselves" does a damn thing is a second deliberate rudeness

what a stupid thing to say == look inward for self support FIRST. Should that fail, then look to the community SECOND

what part of i was born w. my condition do you not understand, i'm afraid as an infant less than 24 hours old i did not have the ability to look inward

your attitude is cruel because it puts the blame on the victim, this is the reason why we DON'T have universal health care, if you pretend it can't happen to you because you did everything right down
to picking out the right DNA, then you don't have to care abt anyone else

and i love this one -- To "hope" that someone will "suffer" will likely get you in trouble one day.

dude, only if you believe in superstition rather than in medical technology -- in the real world, some people only develop compassion after they themselves have experienced pain, since you are unable to imagine the real experience of people w. certain illnesses, the only way you'll understand is when it happens to you

you seem to put a lot of faith in witchcraft, if we eat the magical foods, if we make the magical motions with our bodies, all will be well

if we censor our thoughts & are afraid to feel what we feel, again all will somehow magically be well

real world don't work that way

:shrug:

well, i can tell based on your posts you have v. little experience of the world, you will just have to learn the hard way, and you WILL if you live long enough or if someone you love lives long enough, or do you blame even your great-grandparents for getting old and ill, must be a hell of a way to live, always being superior to we mere mortals

one last time and i'm out of here --blaming victims for needing health care is the best possible way to guarantee that we will NEVER get universal health care

"not to be mean, but okay, i will be mean, i hope to god you suffer from some of these persistent rashes i've seen one day"

You lecture me on "compassion," yet "hope" that I will "suffer?" You lecture me on "reality" but invoke "God" to deliver me malice? Outstanding.

You, as an adult, are in a position to know yourself. You already seem to. You also, as an adult, can improve, enormously, your world view with a healthy diet and regular activity, all within the bounds of the "conditions" you have.

As part of a "Universal Health Care" system, we must teach our children to understand and to care for their bodies. We must teach them how to critically observe so they can quickly identify problems. We must provide our children ample, nutrient rich food. "Universal Health Care" is far more than billions for pharmaceuticals and orthodontics for everyone. It's about building community support systems for individuals who are cognizant of their needs.

It may help some people in some cases, but "exercise will improve" goes well beyond the conclusions of vast research on the topic, to say nothing of your other claims. This is why others have correctly posted that your argument sounds "Tom Cruise-ish".

Are you a physician? Have you read most or even some of the research on any of the topics you are talking about?

You are weakening your argument by going well beyond the data, and worse, you are blaming victims for problems that are not under their control AND failing to solve much of the problem of the health care system. Your argument should be ONLY that some people are not taking all the steps they should take to reduce their own health care costs by reducing their need for care. That is a good argument, and there are data to support it.

Not that it matters, but I say this as someone who has always been an exerciser, who is normal weight, non-smoking, who is rarely sick, etc.

Exercise could improve, diet could improve. Understand your body, do some research, and try it out. If it doesn't work, then seek professional assistance. Having tried on your own, you'll be in a better position to speak intelligently about your situation.

"Your argument should be ONLY that some people are not taking all the steps they should take to reduce their own health care costs by reducing their need for care. That is a good argument, and there are data to support it."

Yes, precisely that. Well said.

Can diet and exercise help? Certainly, but it has it's limits. I am a non-overweight, non-smoking, exercising, yoga-practicing vegetarian. However, NONE of that has cured my allergies, asthma, or high blood pressure or stopped me from needing a hysterectomy brought on by huge tumors pressing on my bladder and causing anemia-inducing bleeding. Or, do you still maintain this is all my fault?

And technically, we don't need doctors and hospitals at all, do we. We could return to a time when severely broken bones meant lifelong disabilities, cataracts equalled blindness, more women died in childbirth, pneumonia meant death, etc. ...

Certainly, there are abuses in health care. But I am not opposed to modern medicine as we are all living longer and healthier lives. It's the "industry" that surrounds it that's screwed up.

You are very lucky to remain so naive about medical care, but I'm sure when you start having issues of your own, you'll be happy doctors and hospitals have not disappeared based on your "wisdom."

You can cure anything if you just clap hard enough. ;-)

You have to click the heels of your ruby slippers together three times.

You didn't check yours, and I certainly didn't check mine. So let's not waste time calling opinions distractions, especially since you're responding.

Now, onto your points. See message #80:

spooky3: "Your argument should be ONLY that some people are not taking all the steps they should take to reduce their own health care costs by reducing their need for care. That is a good argument, and there are data to support it."

patriotvoice: Yes, precisely that. Well said.

Furthermore, see message #79:

patriotvoice: I have not found fault with anyone because of the way they are; my apologies should my verbage have come across that way. However, I do hold everyone responsible for their own well-being. You will note that I did not say I hold them responsible for their "physical condition," and there is a huge difference between someone's "physical condition" (which is genetics, plus choices) and their "well being" (which is what they're doing to maintain their physical, mental, and emotional health).

did you really just say --
there is a huge difference between someone's "physical condition" (which is genetics, plus choices) and their "well being" (which is what they're doing to maintain their physical, mental, and emotional health).

is this post even written in english

so i guess my 3 year old niece who died of a brain tumor had great well being because she and her parents were doing everything possible to maintain and restore her health up to and including all the diets, chemo, surgery, etc.

get a clue train, you can be doing everything humanly possible and have the best attitude in the world and you can still get sick and you can still die

can we agree that if you die of your illness after great suffering, you did not have such great well-being no matter how advanced your diet?

your argument boils down to i will pick and choose who is worthy of medical intervention based on how well i like their smile or their work-out regime or how well they lick my rosy red rear end

if you want universal health care, you need to drop the attitude that health care is only for the deserving

jeez

I am sorry for your loss. I do hope you'll understand that I truly empathize, having lost someone innocent and someone beloved.

"i guess my 3 year old niece who died of a brain tumor had great well being because she and her parents were doing everything possible to maintain and restore her health up to and including all the diets, chemo, surgery, etc."

To your question, yes. She had a horrible physical condition, but the best possible well-being. Her well-being would have been worse had no one being doing anything for her.

"can we agree that if you die of your illness after great suffering, you did not have such great well-being no matter how advanced your diet?"

It depends. If you're doing all that you can, then you have your best possible well-being. It's the best you can do, and that's what really counts. It's tempting to think of others as having it better and of comparing someone else's well-being to our own (you've seemed to be doing that with me). But I don't believe they're comparable. Two people with the same physical conditions can have entirely different well-beings, based on their lifestyle, their emotional support, and a plethora of other factors. Likewise, one person with a degenerative illness and another with great healthy but persistent ennui can both have the same miserable well-being, but for different compounding reasons.

"if you want universal health care, you need to drop the attitude that health care is only for the deserving"

The only people who deserve health care are our children.

His message was that a healthy lifestyle is good preventative medicine that reduces our reliance on treatments after the fact, which is what our current health care system is so focused on. I believe the phrase goes something like 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. The claim that a healthy lifestyle is a cure-all for all illnesses is only something that you have been claiming he said, not what he actually said.

Well said!

I suffered for over a year before finally going on medication. The ONLY thing that has worked.

A friend of mine was a in bone-crushing (literally) car crash as a child. His jaw was heavily fractured, and as a result, has had crippling migraines ever since. That's nearly 30 years of pain and misery. Drugs (prescribed and acquired, so to speak) are the only remedy for his case.

The doctors believe that mine are due to my blood clotting disorder. They were reluctant to put me on migraine medications (I can't take any that have risk of stroke), that is why I did try exercise and diet. I am now on one that does not have the risk of stroke associated with it and it is working. What a difference it has made in the quality of day to day living. My husband said that he notices a big difference and I'm sure that my children do also (they are too young to tell me).

People who go for all this "alternative" balderdash are usually hypochondriacs who have never been expensively sick.

You nailed it. She is the biggest rube for these snake oil peddlers and there's nothing wrong with her.

My whippet-thin uncle, Mr. Walks-around-Bayonne-constantly, has high blood pressure. My thin cousin-in-law has childhood diabetes. My skinny other uncle has had 3 hip replacements, and his equally thin wife has crippling arthritis.
Except for the 50-ish c-i-l, they are in their 70's, war vets, retired coal miners, nurses. HARD WORKERS who took care of themselves.
They have health problems, COSTLY ones.

It doesn't matter what size or shape you are; it only matters that you're self aware, that you have a good understanding of your body, and that you take care of your needs to the best of your ability. I believe that an integral part of a "Universal Health Care" system is education and a robust fitness and nutrition program starting from early childhood on up. That will help our children, who are our most important asset, learn to take the best possible care of their bodies. The other end of the solution -- medicine and pharmaceuticals -- is still needed for genetics, accidents, etc.

Then you start talking about homeopathy :eyes:

Getting everybody fitter means that more people with lousy genes will live into expensive old age instead of dying off and saving us money.

and you think their problems can be solved by having them exercise?

"The only long term solution is a serious program of conditioning, strength-building, flexibility enhancement, and nutrition including - but not limited to - APFT batteries (situps, pushups, 2 mile run), weight lifting, swimming, yoga, and meal planning. Routine physical maintenance coupled with a robust, close-to-earth diet is the first step in lifelong health."

Focus on "...a serious program of...nutrition...including...close-to-earth diet". Part of proper nutrition is getting enough quality food to meet your body weight maintenance needs. No child should go hungry. Ever. Anywhere.

It's true that childhood obesity is a problem, but the issue is that people are dying because they cannot affort medical care - now.

Another poster suggested that anyone making your "it's all the fatties fault" argument lacks life experience. I find that viewpoint compelling, and would add that I find the viewpoint somewhat sanctimonious and Tom-Cruise-esque.

"Maintenance medications" around my household consist of a generic version of a common antihistamine (purchased at about 1/5 the local price in canada because the patent protection in the US is unnecessarily long) a nasal steroid (because my middle child nearly died from a chronic sinus infection) an ADD drug that enables my youngest child with autism to marginally function in an educational environment.

None of these meds are optional.

It's not as simple as adults needing to fix their lifestyle habits. Of course they need to do so. But Americans also work more hours with fewer vacations than almost any other industrialized society. When you're working 10-12 hours a day and often raising a family in the hours you're not at work, it becomes difficult to find time to exercise and makes it much easier to fall back on unhealthy convenience food.

As I've contended in other responses, a substantial part of a "Universal Health Care" system is education for our children. That education would speak to the components I've mentioned (fitness and nutrition), but would also necessarily include rest. My belief is that solid education and habit formation in our children will lead to an overall healthier, and happier, population (I also believe a more stable medical institution, but I need more research to back that position).

We adults are much harder to fix, precisely for the reason you've stated: overworked. I also think most American adults are apathetic at worst, but certainly depressed, which makes change difficult. Regardless, I strongly believe this: if we're going to overhaul "Health Care," incurring a massive cost with many decades of debt, we must NOT do so for ourselves; we must do it for our children. Our children will bear the financial burden, and they should get the reward.

We borrow so much to spend on ourselves; if we must borrow, it must be to spend on our children. They are the ones ultimately footing the bill.

(on edit: typo)

Thats right in just two years its doubled, deductible also went up this year and they changed our copays to a percentage of the drug cost.

So with that and freakin energy costs any cola I may get is pretty much gone. Then factor in food costs and other costs going up constantly and woops I don't have any extra money to buy your stuff and they wonder why sales are down. Example I always buy a new PC every three years.. I'm about to hit year 4. Dell lost my sale because of gas/medical/food.

And it just snowballs like that... I'll go to hell before I use a credit card and pay interest for extras so bye bye sales.

Here is something that corporate American needs to get. If you put Republicans in control thats good for your individual taxes but their policies destroy the base of consumers who actually keep you in business. So think about your own decisions before you scratch your heads and think "gee why are sales off?"

my employer offers such excellent health coverage, I guess I will stay at my job until I either die or they force me to retire. I have medical, dental, eye care and life insurance for less than $100 a month. I would pay more for Medicare and it does not offer dental or eye care insurance.

If it was not fo having Medicaid, and Medicare i would be screwed. It costs me and my 2 women $162.50 a wk to have somewhat sucky health care for them and the kids.

I can't see why industry does not get behind universal health care. It would save them a bundle in costs. I also can't get many people to understand that if we all paid in a pittance we could have universal health care for all for a fraction of what we have to pay now.

In the end, i guess profits are percieved more important than lives.

We have to have the extra help around here. :evilgrin:

been run out of town by the Republicans, companies such as General Motors wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy now. It has to come to a head eventually and the death of a company like GM would get their attention. Something's got to give. When our premium hit double and a half our mortgage payment we had to drop it. Since we have years to go before we're eligible for Medicare, we pretty much live with our fingers crossed.

Her plan was a hugely expensive subsidy to large insurance companies that would not have changed where we are today by very much.

many of the problems in health care is to get the insurance industry out of it, period. That should take much of the pressure off, then we can get to the rest of it.

unequal status of health care in the US. Including here on DU. Our politico's are not very concerned. Seems if they have free, all inclusive government paid health care, there must not be too great a problem. Just us "complainers" Well, this 63 year old complainer just went back to work. Tried to retire but when you receive $537.00 from Social Security and BCBS costs $770.00, just doesn't add up. Even if I didn't have to spend another penny on my existence, I'd still be short several hundred a month. Interesting math. So glad for all our elected officials, bless their loving hearts. Must be nice to be so secure in the health care department. BTW, most of them could afford to buy their own insurance anyway. What do we pay these guys for anyway? Remember Kerry's proposal to get all of us under the same type of coverage that "Washington" has? Down the sewer with the election.

at the start of next year will go up 200%.. She said why don't I just pull down my panties and bend over!

My spouse and I are in our late 50's, just retired. To continue our current health coverage, it will cost $800 per month. Argh.

What is the status of the Kennedy plan, medicare for all. Is it still being considered?

Heck, if the government can spend billions in Iraq every month, they should be able to cut those costs and put that money toward a better healthcare system for all Americans.

I pay a monthly amount for my insurance. I haven't been for necessary "maintenance" visits; not the dentist, no pap, no mammogram, no new eyeglasses. Why? Because after I've paid for the insurance policy, there's nothing left for the copays.

us all in. I belong to a state retirement system and I pay 45$ a month for dental, eyes, ears. I don't pay a nickel for health and only 10% on my prescription. No way on earth this can't be figured out for all. It almost makes 27 years of hell worth it. I am so very sorry for all of you in a bind. It makes me sick.

Insulin-dependent for 27 years.

I can't afford to be me. Nor could I afford to be self-employed. In fact, I have to make sure that I work for a big enough organization that my costs won't drown the entire company medical plan, even though I function quite productively on about $1,000 per month in medical supplies.

I try to pay all my bills (even with insurance, I can barely afford deductibles and copays) but one of my health care providers sicked the most evil collection agency on me. This woman was calling my house every day, yelling on my answering machine that I was irresponsible.

I guess it would be more responsible to just die . . . in which case, I will be irresponsible for as long as I can!

Seriously, the health care situation in this country is a filthy shame. It is immoral to profit from the suffering of others, in my opinion. One of three major things that are for profit in this country that bring shame on us all. The other two are profiting from incarcerating our fellow citizens, and profiting from war.

Right now it doesn't look like we will ever have reasonable health care (single payer). But perhaps when the costs just get too much to pass on to the workers, the business leaders will advocate for single payer. After all, it would help them too.

should send them a drop dead letter and talk to an attorney. You said you have her on your answering machine yelling at you, that is (talk to your attorney) actionable.

Sorry to hear about the crap you are having to go through. Best of luck and you are spot on in your comments.

The only thing I know of is to continue writing our congressmen and vote for those of like mind.

But it gives us no great comfort to say as much.

K/N!

One third of health care costs go to the insurance companies. A govt run program would be far less expensive.

Does your state require at least one insurance company to accept anyone and everyone who applies? I know here in Michigan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is required to take everyone. They have plans for people in your situation, too, in which they group all the individuals across the state. It's not the best coverage, but it's a lot cheaper.

Do you have a health insurance agent in your town? They can check around for you and find a better deal.

I helped our church try to find health insurance for our new priest and his family, and I was stunned at how much it all cost. It's disgusting. We need a national health care plan now, and you're right: people are already dying.

My hubby's an internist, and he's so pissed about this that he can barely talk about it. He's lost patients who couldn't afford to come in for basic things only to find that they had super-expensive diseases now that were beyond treatment. The practice he's in is pretty decent to un-insured patients (cut the cost and work out a payment plan), but it's still expensive. I know many doctors who agree with my hubby that at the very least, we need a single-payer system. With the strength of the insurance lobby, it's going to be a nasty fight, though.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with three asthmatics in the family we can't afford not to be insured and we are lucky to have insurance even with a $430/month payment for our portion...but it keeps escalating and escalating...

available to anyone who wants to purchase it. It works pretty much like regular insurance and I know they can offer it at a better rate that the for profit insurance companies because the cost of administering it is so low. This too may be a way to finally get universal health care for all by doing this incrementally.

Since you are out of work you might qualify for Medicaid. Have you inquired about it?

on a state level. Check out healthcareforall.org, California's
sb840; we must demand it.

When GM falls, and it will, the talking heads will blame it on the fact that the company had to carry healthcare costs for their employees. Thus, corporations will stop providing healthcare to their workers.

The Republicans will push for a plan where workers will buy their own healthcare through a payroll tax deduction. Their plan will be sold as a means to cover all Americans, but it won't do that because only high wage earners will be able to take advantage of the plan. Meanwhile, millions more Americans will go without health insurance because they don't make enough, pre-tax or otherwise, to cover themselves or their families.

of the Republicans and their friends.

To me, health care is the #1 issue to address in 06 and 08 - and it's one that hits everyone! It's a win/win - the citizens win and so do Democrats (literally)!

It only takes a couple of days for the Right to swift-boat an idea. In contrast, it takes a long time to muddle through the lies and getting the public to recognize the truth. (e.g. the steadily declining number of people who think Iraq is linked to 9/11)

So we can't wait until a couple of months before an election to spring a health care plan. The time is now.

the only "funny" moments are when the republicans in my office cry and complain about how the healthcare costs are hurting them....wll hell they voted for it...

Medicare and Social Security?

I also think that this SHOULD be the #1 issue for the Democrats. The cost of health care is destroying lives and families and for what? I get real angry about this topic because the Repukes have put out so much bullshit and misinformation regarding universal health care that they have frightened enough sheep into being happy with the current system...even though all Americans (including them) are being screwed over by the insurance industry.

rise of minimum CC payments, reform of bankruptcy law - it certainly will hurt a lot of people.

The only way to control health care costs is to halt the innovations and advancements in health care itself.

A little tort reform wouldn’t hurt though.

Enjoy your stay.

Perhaps it is you that should be enjoying your stay.

:radio:

advancements in health care. It is only in the last 30 years that health care has become unreachable for many. Tort reform? You are aware that awards in malpractice suites have remained relatively constant over this period of time, right?

have seen the greatest advancement in the history of health care.

Unfortunately, all that innovation comes with a heavy price tag.

televisions and computers are both cheaper now than they were 30 years ago. Health care is the ONLY necessity that the average American cannot afford and has risen far higher and faster in cost than any other industry. The main reason is that large corporations decided they wanted another way to relieve us of our money so they bought a basically nonprofit medical system and made it into a huge money-maker for themselves. It's not equipment, it's not advances, it is not better medical care - it is purely and simply the profits of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical corporations that have driven up the cost. It is GHOULISH for corporations to profit from victims of illness and disease.

pay more for marketing than they do for "innovations and advancements". Despite paying so much for marketing, the industry still has a gross profit margin approaching 25%.

Canadian drug companies sell generic versions of common US (patented) drugs for 75% less.

Net profit is what counts and they aren't netting 25%.

Canadian drug companies are riding free on American innovation. How many drugs have Canadian drug companies invented?

In 2002, a year in which most companies lost money, the pharma companies in the Fortune 500 had a net profit of 17%, a return on assets of 14.1% and a 27.6% return on shareholder equity.

Wyeth and Pfizer, made a 30% and 26% net profit in 2002.

Remember, this is in a year in which all the companies in the Fortune 500 recorded a 66% loss in profits.

This is about 5 1/2 times more profitable than the average fortune 500 company.

In 2002 pharma companies spent 14% of their revenue in R&D and 31% in marketing. Companies which sell drugs in canada would stop if they weren't making money.

Unlike in this country, the Canadian government is looking out primarily for its citizens one of the ways they are doing that is by using a reasonable-length patent protection.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf

I've provided the link because hopes springs eternal. You might use the information to debunk the talking points you've been fed, and are now trying to pass off in a venue which holds higher standards.

instead of mindlessly spouting talking points.

Here are some actual facts:
Annually, the industry spends up to $60 billion on drug marketing—nearly twice what it spends on research and development. In 2004, Pfizer spent almost $120 million for media ads for Lipitor, the world's number-one selling prescription drug, while companies promoting erectile dysfunction treatments Viagra, Levitra and Cialis spent $425 million. Direct to consumer advertisement has also grown significantly: from $791 million in 1996 to $3.8 billion in 2004.

The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent more than $800 million in federal lobbying and campaign donations at the federal and state levels in the past seven years, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found. Its lobbying operation, on which it reports spending more than $675 million, is the biggest in the nation. No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy in that period. Its combined political outlays on lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.

Critics charge that the prescription drug benefit will transfer wealth from taxpayers, who provide the funding for Medicare, to pharmaceutical firms. According to a study done in October 2003 by Boston University professors Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, 61 percent of Medicare money spent on prescription drugs will become profit for drug companies.

The U.S. government contributes more money to the development of new drugs—in the form of tax breaks and subsidies—than any other government. Of the 20 largest pharmaceutical corporations, nine are based in the United States. Yet drugs are more expensive in the United States than in any other part of the world, and global drug companies make the bulk of their profits in the United States.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723


So what other mindless slogans do you have that I can debunk in about 10 minutes of research?

That we shut down the advertising industry?

I get sick and tired of seeing all the ads myself. However, that's one of the things we have to endure if we are to live in a free society.

So, I would suggest that it is you who is the mindless one.

You're the genius that just tried to tell us the reason the costs are so high is because of "advancements." Then it was shown the amount of dollars that go into advertising verses the amount that actually goes into "research"...You were just blown out of the water friend..

because advertising a product in a necessary expense.

Just ask anyone with anything to sell.

dinners, bribe them with expensive gifts, and paint VIAGRA ads on the sides of busses? To sell a product that may or may not be safe, because of the corrupt nature of the FDA? I don't.

There is a major difference between advertising a product and advertising prescription drugs. I never understood those commercials. They seem to imply that the average Joe with no formal medical background can watch them, see a few symptoms that match what they have, and self-prescribe by asking their doctor for that product.

That is NOT how medicine should be practiced. The patient should come to the doctor, tell them their symptoms, and let the QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL decide what medication would best suit their patient based on the YEARS of schooling and experience they had to go through to earn their degrees and licenses.

If the drug makers want to market their drugs to doctors, that's perfectly acceptable. Put ads in medical journals, send information on their drugs to hospitals and clinics, give out free samples, whatever works. But there is NO reason whatsoever to advertise as heavily as they do to the average person.

an ignorant populace.

However, I don't let them affect me too much. Because when they are not looking I do what I want to do.

because I'm still pretty...

:rofl:

monitor, I can't verify your looks...But I sure as hell can verify the other!

Cause don't you know if you're not doing anything wrong you got nothing to hide? That's what I hear your fellow wingnuts saying all the time.

:rofl:

This guy just admitted to doing things while the government and people aren't looking. I don't know what those things are but I feel unsafe from the terrorists right now :scared:

Can you "question" him, please?

The only thing it will reform is the ability of the average Joe to get fair redress from large corporate entities that can afford to throw their legions of staff lawyers at people who have been killed or maimed by negligence or dangerous products.

that's one thing. On the other hand, health care is not an exact science. We should demand quality, but we cannot expect perfection. For example, there will always be a % that have a severe reaction to any given drug.

And the fact remains that for every $ lawyers take means one less $ available for health care.

that the savings are going to be passed on to the consumer or the $ poured into better health care. It is more logical to think that if there isn't some redress for incompetence or shoddy products we will have more incompetence and shoddy products to harm us. If companies know that they are going to have to pay (and paying big is the only thing that will get their attention) they are going to be a lot more careful with the products they sell or the people they allow to be in a position to dispense powerful chemicals known as drugs.

To believe that large corporations always have the best interests of people in mind one only has to look at Enron or The White Star Line.

If The White Star Line doesn't ring a bell, it should. Without proper government oversight of shipping companies in 1912, over 1500 men women and children froze to death or drowned when the Titanic negligently sped into an ice field carrying too few lifeboats for the passengers and crew. Titanic set sail with a fire in a coal bunker because there were no regulations to stop the company from doing so. The ship wasn't built with a double hull, technology that had been around for at least 20 years, that would have kept her from sinking from the iceberg collision because government regulations did not require it. A ship nearby did not come to the rescue because there were no regulations requiring the company to hire enough wireless operators to monitor radio communications 24 hours a day.

I don't trust corporations to do the right thing any further than I could throw Ken Lay.

You don't see any attempts to curtail corporations suing other corporations or individuals do you?

The two primary reasons health care costs are so expensive is 1. price gouging by the insurance companies, and 2. coverage of very expensive procedures that as a society we demand because we are afraid of death. Two that come immediately to mind are keeping people on expensive life support for years after their brain has died and keeping extremely premature babies alive. Both of those can result in costs upwards of $1 million, and that cost gets spread around to all of us. The decision to let go is a hard one to make, but I don't believe that we will get a single-payer system to work well until we learn to make that decision.

However, if someone chooses to make that hard decision you mentioned (the wrong way) we would never hear the end of the cries of "heartless," "mean-spirited," etc.

That is the lay of the land.

Once they abolish teaching biology and life sciences in the classroom and replace it with religion like they want to we won't need to worry about innovations and advancements in this country anymore.

America, the land of stupid motherfuckers

I started thinking about this when the Iraqi invasion began. Surely, I wasn’t that much smarter than the rest of my countrymen. Surely, they could see that there were no WMD. Surely, they heard Saddam back peddle and invite inspectors in.

Guess not

Today at work, our HR director was bitching about insurance costs. I said, “It’s amazing, isn’t it. We pay through the nose for crappy coverage that will drop you like a hot potato as soon as they can if you get sick and need to use what you’ve been paying for.”

She knows my feelings, so her answer was “Yes, but we get to pick the doctors we want!”



Yeah. As long as they are listed by our HMO.

She, like so many others has drank so deeply of the Kool Aide that she doesn’t even hear what she’s saying and does not go past Republican talking points in her reasoning. Mindsets like this are damning in their pervasiveness and damning in their results. Every day, I drive by SUV’s and pick up trucks festooned with American flags, bumper stickers proclaiming they support Bush, telling me that ‘these colors don’t run’ and yellow ribbon magnets to inform the world that they support the troops even though they would quickly dismiss any suggestion that they actually go to Iraq and truly support the war effort up close and personal. If all these people feel so strongly about this war, why are the Armed services falling so far behind in recruitment goals?

I’m still hearing people damning the French… “Surrender monkeys.” When I say that we would most likely be a part of the British Empire if it weren’t for Lafayette (You know, that French guy… “Lafayette, we are here” guy?), the answer I got today was “probably not.”

Are these people trying to be stupid? They make Luddites look like the Manhattan Project. Stem cells? Cloning? Evolution? If Newton lived in America today, they would hang him from the nearest tree to disprove the law of gravity. And call it compassionate science…

Compassion? Not if you are poor. You chose to be that way. Not if you’re gay. You chose to be that way. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens? We’re spreading freedom and you know you have to break a few eggs. After all, we lost 3000 people in the Trade Center disaster, so I guess that figures, Iraq ought to lose 30,000… Even though the 9-11 attackers were Saudis and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it.

I’m sorry, America, 51% of the voters are not simply uninformed. They are Stupid Motherfuckers because they have taken the lies given to them by a bunch of power hungry men and women and have not just held on to the lies but have gilded them in gold and carry the lies as battle standards.

http://www.ustrust.com/public/ustrust/global_pages/site_map_index.html?cmsid=P-453198&lvl1=global_pages&refid=P-420932
Click on "Affluent Survey" for a glimspe of how the top 1% of the wealthiest think...
This web site will expand the minds of those who have not yet comprehended
what the elite have in mind for the rest of us.

BHN

The Most Promising Sectors

"Affluent Americans believe the most promising sectors to invest in over the next 12 months are healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and biotech, favored by 79%, and technology, favored by 72%. The technology sector staged a strong comeback among the affluent over the past year—only 54% felt the sector was attractive in 2003. Defense and aerospace stocks, on the other hand, declined in favor from 71% in 2003 to 59% in 2004."

The uber rich are plannning on getting
even MORE wealthy at our expense.
Disgusting AND depressing.
BHN

Just make sure you set some tight stops.

I just got my crystal ball back from the magicians shop and I predict there will be plenty of voters who will regret not listening to Kerry in the not-so-distant future.