Leave a comment

Comments 12

arcstone August 27 2009, 18:23:35 UTC
That's an actual damn good point. Especially when phrased alongside other forms of insurance coverage.

I posted up a good link a little while ago with some sensible options to lower cost and make it affordable. But again, its doubtful it will ever enter legislation. The current congressional leaders are of the philosophy that government bureaucracy is good and that the state can provide for its people regardless of costs and deficits.

So yeah. I am seriously afraid of almost any legislation that attempts to address the problem, as our government seems to me at least incapable of enactic wholistic legislation, all the seem to do is throw band-aids on the bigger problems while the underlying causes continue to come back time and time again. Then again, I have developed an almost anarchist view when it comes to trust in my government. ;-)

Reply

mushroom104 August 27 2009, 18:26:41 UTC
"..all the seem to do is throw band-aids on the bigger problems while the underlying causes continue to come back time and time again."

Yep. I fully expect them to make things worse rather than better. It seems to be the case with just about every piece of legislation for at least the last 50 years or so.

It's almost like Congress is there to help the corporations screw the little people even harder.

Reply

arcstone August 27 2009, 18:31:08 UTC
Well, let's see: These folks are all relics from the 60s if not earlier. Their main method of "listening" to the people come from focus groups and lobbyists, and they spend over 50% of their legislative annual time in a constant race to be re-elected. They are also expected to accept money from corporations but at the same time not do them any favors, which I don't really see the point in.

So basically, while I agree, I don't think its a mega-corp consipiracy. I just think corporations have the resources and ability to have their needs at the front of the line. Until government can find a better way to be responsive to its people - like I don't know, to have the voting public be smart for once - then I don't see it changing any time soon.

But yeah, I also agree its been like 50 yrs.+ since there was good legislation (except for that whole banning the draft and Civil Rights stuff, they get good marks for that).

Reply

mushroom104 August 27 2009, 18:51:27 UTC
They have passed some good social legislation. I'll give them that, but not enough.

Reply


mushroom104 August 27 2009, 18:24:02 UTC
No. Dental & ophthalmology get ignored as usual ( ... )

Reply

ihvpave August 27 2009, 18:48:10 UTC
See... I agree with high deductable insurance for catastrophic events ( ... )

Reply

mushroom104 August 27 2009, 19:24:57 UTC
Yeah, teeth and vision are kind of important, at least I think so. I don't know why they don't count as health care either. Stepping on and getting bitten by a snake because you can't see it could be hazardous to your health. And bad abscesses can actually kill you.

You would think that medically required dentistry or orthodontics would fall under health care...but it doesn't. I found that out the hard way when I had to have my impacted wisdom teeth removed.

I guess put off the surgery as long as you can, try to save up as much as you can, and put the rest on credit.

Life is decidedly unfair and getting more so for the regular people every year. I try to take solice in the fact that at least I'm not a peasant in Africa or something that can't even afford a toothbrush and toothpaste.

Reply

ihvpave August 27 2009, 21:44:19 UTC
I just think it's dumb that we are equating insurability with health care.

NO.

Make it easy and affordable for me to go to the doctor without it having to be an insurance event. If I require special care, FINE. But... To get a check up shouldn't be something that has to be financially prepared for if insurance costs are too high.

Reply


her_boyscout August 27 2009, 23:12:09 UTC
i love this discussion... You are right, insurability does NOT equal health care ( ... )

Reply

ihvpave August 28 2009, 13:26:57 UTC
i know that above you mentioned $100/month meds... where would the $10000/treatment (ie chemo) come into play, how can people afford this? Would this be a disease that insurance would cover? How about AIDS, MS, ALS, COPD? All these diseases are considered chronic, and eventually terminal. Is there a rule to allow certain diseases to be covered and not others? Can that be done fairly, without discrimination?Those are good questions - and to me, those would fall under insurance coverage, with a deductible the purchaser feels comfortable with ( ... )

Reply


markarsenal August 30 2009, 07:35:56 UTC
This sounds a lot like some of the arguments made in the last Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

The whole debate (and the sorry fact that the debate is essentially between the "do nothing" and "do nothing well" sides) has led us to begin some tentative steps at resolving it ourselves:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/

Reply


Leave a comment

Up