Personally, I am not a fan of employer based health insurance. It puts our businesses at a competative disadvantage. Just my opinion.

Bush's health care plan not most effective (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-03-19T192951Z_01_N19197074_RTRUKOC_0_US-HEALTHCARE-CONGRESS.xml&src=rss)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least two of the health care proposals being presented to Congress would cover all or nearly all of the Americans who lack health insurance, and many would lower spending, too, according to an independent report released on Monday.

Many of the plans would do more to cover uninsured Americans and lower costs than President George W. Bush's proposals, said the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health care issues.

Health care has emerged as one of the top political issues of 2007, with groups as diverse as labor unions and major retailers teaming up to propose changes.

Several studies have found fault with the current U.S. system -- a free-for-all in which employers provide most health care, government programs provide much of the rest and 47 million Americans are left with no health insurance.

"If we don't move to make changes to our failing health care system, the number of uninsured in this country is projected to rise to 56 million by 2013," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a statement.

"Many of these proposals demonstrate that it is possible to move toward the high performance health care system Americans want and deserve while assuring access to health care for everyone," Davis said.

For Monday's report, staffers at the fund analyzed 10 health care plans introduced in 2006 and 2007 in the U.S. Congress, as well as Bush's proposals.

California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark's AmeriCare proposal that builds on Medicare and the employer-based system could save families with low and moderate incomes a collective $142.6 billion in 2007 and would cover 47.8 million extra Americans, the study found.

Im not familiar with your system. What would be the consequences of 56 mollion uninsured,does the Federal Gov not pick up they're tab.

Im not familiar with your system. What would be the consequences of 56 mollion uninsured,does the Federal Gov not pick up they're tab.
no, the "system" does. the shoe i need to wear over my AFO is $20 on the internet, but i have to get it from the hospital. UofM charges my insurance company $60.

Im not familiar with your system. What would be the consequences of 56 mollion uninsured,does the Federal Gov not pick up they're tab.
Hahahahah... The government picking up the tab, that's hysterical.

What would be the consequences of 56 mollion uninsured,does the Federal Gov not pick up they're tab.

Ultimately we taxpayers do end up paying their tab, but it costs more because people without health insurance end up going to the emergency room for regular care.

Hahahahah... The government picking up the tab, that's hysterical.
It must be me DF,here the Gov picks up everybodys tab.

It must be me DF,here the Gov picks up everybodys tab.
I think Canada does too, but you'd have to ask Sal to be sure.
Insurance under my husbands new job would run us $327 a week for family. Unfuckingreal!$327 a weeeeek!!!! OMG!
Personally, I'd rather go to the ER when I have to then pay that rate. Screw them.

The problem with insurance these days, and probably with any government plan, is that there's absolutely no incentive to try and save money. No incentive to not head over to the doctor every time you get the sniffles. No incentive for the doctor not to order every test he can think of. No incentive to shop around and see which doctor is cheaper or who has the cheapest shoe for Mike's AFO (whatever the hell that is). Can you imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered oil changes and brake jobs in addition to accidents? Especially if you never really knew what the dealer was charging to perform that maintenance.

If it were up to me I'd have the government cover health care, but only over a certain level, perhaps on a sliding scale depending on your income. In other words, the government covers catestrophic medical problems, while you cover normal doctor's visits and the like. Watch the cost of health care fall when people actually know what it's costing them and they have the ability to take their money elsewhere.

Government needs to cover routine preventative stuff too, because that is what averts the catastrophic disasters. Having them not cover it is inviting people to only see their doctor when something is wrong, driving the cost of medicine up, not down.

The problem with insurance these days, and probably with any government plan, is that there's absolutely no incentive to try and save money. No incentive to not head over to the doctor every time you get the sniffles. No incentive for the doctor not to order every test he can think of. No incentive to shop around and see which doctor is cheaper or who has the cheapest shoe for Mike's AFO (whatever the hell that is). Can you imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered oil changes and brake jobs in addition to accidents? Especially if you never really knew what the dealer was charging to perform that maintenance.

If it were up to me I'd have the government cover health care, but only over a certain level, perhaps on a sliding scale depending on your income. In other words, the government covers catestrophic medical problems, while you cover normal doctor's visits and the like. Watch the cost of health care fall when people actually know what it's costing them and they have the ability to take their money elsewhere.
an AFO is an orthopedic device that holds my foot up...the bill on that one was $1700, but it was custom made, and rather heavy duty...but the next one should be one of the commercially availble ones that will fit in a normal shoe and retail for around $60....but i still have to get it from the hospital since it has to be molded with a heat gun, so it'll be around $200.
http://img.nextag.com/image/A_P_E_Products/0/000/005/301/823/530182309.jpg

I think Canada does too, but you'd have to ask Sal to be sure.
Insurance under my husbands new job would run us $327 a week for family. Unfuckingreal!$327 a weeeeek!!!! OMG!
Personally, I'd rather go to the ER when I have to then pay that rate. Screw them.
:eek:i'd do that too! my medical & dental is $25 a week!

Sheeeit, just hit a craft store and get you a heat gun for ten bucks.

Sheeeit, just hit a craft store and get you a heat gun for ten bucks.
i have a heat gun-it was $69 @Home Depot:D

but what i don't have is the skilled labor and heat resistant pad to form it correctly myself.

The problem with insurance these days, and probably with any government plan, is that there's absolutely no incentive to try and save money. No incentive to not head over to the doctor every time you get the sniffles.

Sure there is. Cost. Right now our current system is cost prohibitive to go to the doctor and pay a copay and deductible "every time you get the sniffles".


No incentive for the doctor not to order every test he can think of.

Sure there is. Again, cost. I don't want to pay for any unnecessary tests. I had to get some blood work done last year and my portion of the lab work was $280 and I have the best plan available to me from the largest health insurance company in the nation.

No incentive to shop around and see which doctor is cheaper

If I am injured or sick I do not want to have to shop around and call six different doctors and try to get quotes for what they might or might not do. I want to go to the doctor and get treated.


Can you imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered oil changes and brake jobs in addition to accidents? Especially if you never really knew what the dealer was charging to perform that maintenance.

That is a great argument for getting rid of for profit health insurance alltogther.

In Japan, owner must get health insurance for employee, by Japanese law.
The cost for the insurance is defraied by each company to 50% and employee to 50%.

Japanese company also has burden to make employees' health checkup every year. It's also by law.Usually employees can take it by free of charge.






My brain is very tired and using incorrect English because studing English for listening from several weeks before, but Japanese low doesn't protect from it.:@@:

Sure there is. Cost. Right now our current system is cost prohibitive to go to the doctor and pay a copay and deductible "every time you get the sniffles".

The cost isn't that much compared to what the doctor is being paid. But regardless, without insurance you'd see greater use of some of the small in-store health clinics and other such things that are becoming more and more popular, because they're a hell of a lot cheaper. Which is good for everyone.

If I am injured or sick I do not want to have to shop around and call six different doctors and try to get quotes for what they might or might not do. I want to go to the doctor and get treated.

Well hopefully you've already picked and seen a doctor for checkups before you get really sick.

That is a great argument for getting rid of for profit health insurance alltogther.

I really don't have a problem with that. My only concern is that the government has pretty much shown itself to be completely incapable of doing anything correctly for anything approaching a reasonable price.