When is nothing better than something? When it's a limited health insurance policy, according to the USA Today.
The June 6 story by Julie Appleby emphasized problems with such insurance and questioned "whether such policies provide a false sense of security."
Critics beat out supporters in the story by a ratio of 2:1. Appleby cited two experts from different pro-universal health care advocacy groups and two unsatisfied customers.
Both advocacy groups took a hostile stance toward the health insurance industry, but Appleby gave readers no sense of the organizations' liberal positions - which included an affiliation with the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation.
This is not the first time Appleby has provided viewers with a one-sided view of health care issues. In August 2005, she wrote a story complaining about the expense of health care. But she buried the major reason for high costs: medical progress that saves more lives than ever before.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I remember way back in '93
June 6, 2007 - 16:58 ET by motherbeltI remember way back in '93 (yes, I admit I'm that old, LOL!) Hillary
standing with a toddler in her arms, a child with multiple medical
problems, whose care was costing the family thousands of dollars a
year. She said that, under her plan, this child would recieve all the
care he needed, at no cost to the family. Does anyone really think that
would happen, year after year after year?
Everyone wants "free" health care. But no country on earth can provide, by the largesse of tax revenues, all the health care services that a population can, and will, demand, if they perceive it to be free.
There is no way for any such program to survive without rationing. In Britain, even with tax rates much, much higher than ours, their socialist health care system is foundering. How much of our total tax revenue are we willing to give to a socialist health care system, and at what cost to other social programs?
I heard a commentator once sa
June 6, 2007 - 21:24 ET by HypocriteHaterI heard a commentator once say, if you give something away for free, you're always going to have takers, whether they need it or not. He had been referring to government welfare, but I believe this also applies to universal healthcare.
If something is free, that me
June 7, 2007 - 07:48 ET by dscottIf something is free, that means it's worthless or has no value and invariably people take it for granted and use it without any consideration.
Briton's health care system demonstrates what happens when demand is disconnnected from price, it results in the same consistent failure of Socialism - a shortage with arbitrary rationing to limit demand. Were the Socialists kept out, each service would charge the appropriate amount in keeping with demand (that's the short answer). Medical providers responding (in search of profit) to demand would provide more service to increase their bottom line and in doing so, compete against each other as supply is available beyond demand driving down the price. It's basic Capitalism, and no medical care will not come for free because it has a value.
Don't believe for one minute that medical care is not a business, or that everyone who provides medical care is altruistic, the fact that Briton's system is rationing basic care demonstrates otherwise.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I don't know enough about---
June 6, 2007 - 22:09 ET by misterbillI don't know enough about---insurance but isn't some coverage better than none???
Limited Health Insurance Policies
June 6, 2007 - 22:57 ET by River CityIt is impossible to give everyone in this country a comprehensive health insurance policy. We already struggle with the current versions of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and EMTALA enforcement. Over 50% of the country is covered by these programs as it is. The socialists do not want compromise, don't be fooled. Everyone has access to the best health care in the world. If they can't pay the bill someone else will. We will even retroactively qualify you for Medicaid. Most of the hospital bill deadbeats are not people without insurance, by the way. The deadbeats are people with insurance who don't think they should have to pay their share of the bill.
Not to mention, just like any
June 6, 2007 - 23:06 ET by UnsaneNot to mention, just like any other form of insurance or coverage, what is perfect for me just might be wholly inadequate for you.
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Boomsday Approaching
June 6, 2007 - 23:18 ET by Cool ArrowI'm at the Dentist this morning and ran accross the following book review in Newsweek 4/16/07. I was struck with the serious treatment it was given. Came home and Took the Kevorkian thing off my post.
Cassandra Devine knows how to solve the coming "entitlements" crisis, preordained when the 77 million baby boomers begin hitting 65 in 2011: pay retirees to commit suicide, a program she calls "transitioning." Volunteers could receive a lavish vacation beforehand ("a farewell honeymoon"), courtesy of the government, and their heirs would be spared the estate tax. If only 20 percent of boomers select suicide before the age of 70, she says, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will be solvent. End of crisis."
Sure, we could go the &quo
June 7, 2007 - 05:50 ET by motherbeltSure, we could go the "Logan's Run" route, where everyone reports to "Carousel" at a certain age.....they called it "renewal".
Sounds like an episode from S
June 7, 2007 - 07:50 ET by dscottSounds like an episode from Sliders. chilling.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
If only 20 percent of boomers
June 7, 2007 - 08:00 ET by dscottIf only 20 percent of boomers select suicide before the age of 70, she says, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will be solvent. End of crisis."
Well that's an interesting way to keep the Ponzi scheme going, kill off some of the people at the top of the scheme. However, even that in the end will fail since the funds collected are not being properly invested to meet future demand. In 2017, annual SS tax receipts will not pay all the retirees, the National Debt starts getting paid down due to the redeeming of the bonds (SS trust funds hold half of the National Debt) and taxes will increase every year year. In 2042 when the trust fund goes broke then we either tell the seniors to shove it or we become slaves of the government giving every them penny we can't spare.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott
June 7, 2007 - 08:44 ET by Cool ArrowAnd what makes it easier is the pressure from a younger class who aren't related to the older class, and don't look like them either.
Don't even think the option of working past 65 will be open to these boomers. More progressive thought will prevail
And what makes it easier is t
June 7, 2007 - 10:25 ET by dscottAnd what makes it easier is the pressure from a younger class who aren't related to the older class, and don't look like them either
I assume you are talking about legalizing the illegals, In that case with their extra demand of 2.5 trillion dollars, the SS system will go broke way sooner.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Here's a nice article from th
June 7, 2007 - 08:27 ET by dscottHere's a nice article from the AT pointing out the death rate from Socialized medicine in Scotland.
Socialized medicine's death toll in Scotland
Scotland is a nation within a nation, whose population has remained around 5.1 million for the last 40 years. So the fact that a study suggests that 462,000 Scots have died as a result of poor care from the National Health Service over a 29 year period 1974 to 2003,
Maybe this is how they plan to cull the population to limit the number of seniors from using SS benefits...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Even this article doesn't spe
June 7, 2007 - 09:42 ET by BeowulfEven this article doesn't spell out, what to me, is the real reason for astronimical health care costs, and before people start jumping, yes, I know there are many other factors such as sky-high doctor's salaries, insurance greed, etc. But I believe the major factor is, and has been, the ridiculous malpractice suits (such as those which "earned" Edwards his millions, and which has been totally ignored as relating to Mr. Breck). I have no problem with people sueing a doctor who screws up. But these suits are many times so frivolous and the monetary awards so vast as to be incomprehensible.
Two requirements should be implemented for a medical malpractice suit to be filed:
1. Genuine malpractice - meaning the doc plainly screwed up, not due to something not within his/her control. Sometimes, sick/injured people just can't be fixed.
2. The monetary award should be comensurate with the damage done - none of this accidental pinky finger romoval gets $20 million (60% of which the lawyer pockets).
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers