20/20's John Stossel 47 million uninsured

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
641
Tokens
If you seen 20/20 Friday night, i was shocked. It was like a ad for US health insurance companies. I wonder how much money ABC gets from health care industry. Made alot of Canadians mad. The story never said that Canadians live longer and don't have their homes taken away when they get sick. They don't file bankruptcy to get away from hospital bills.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/07/47-million-uninsured.html
 

Officially Punching out Nov 25th
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,482
Tokens
In Canada it works well. Some American politicians want to make one of the largest decisions in the countries history because of some anecdotal evidence about a friend of a friend had to wait.

But with the government/Lottery financed health care people have more money to invest in the economy. Small businesses don't have to offer basic care for employees because they are covered under the government plan. This leaves them more money to reinvest into their business or use the money they save to offer extended health benefits such as Optical and Dental to attract better employees.

My experience with the Canadian Health Care System breaks down like this.

2 babies born via Cesarean Section
1 Broken hand fixed
Total cash out of pocket $30 because we wanted a TV in the Room.

I know a lot of you guys are getting sweet Union benefits but if you weren't Union families, How much would that cost the average person in the US?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
I can certainly understand wanting a TV in the room while they splint up your broken hand


MEANWHILE, here in the good ol' USA, I'm pretty sure that two CSections + 3 days in hospital each would set most folks back at least $10K. And the broken hand in ER with no insurance would be a solid $500 or more
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
What's most puzzling to me is that here in the U.S. I've not seen any discussion of financing a single payer system via the use of a 5 to 6% national sales tax (as they do in Canada with a portion of the national 13% sales tax).
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
SCENES WE'D LIKE TO SEE on youtube


---
Doctor: Okay, Ms KBill....you're getting really close now! Just need you do your breathing and give a few more pushes!

Ms KBill: Give me more fucking drugs!

Doc: (increases the opiod drip flow) There ya go....closer....breathe....push....breathe...push

MsKB: OH! OH! I can feel it coming....BILL! Can you see it? Is it a boy or a girl?!?

KB: Just a second, honey....Cowboys have fourth and goal and they're going for it!!
 

Officially Punching out Nov 25th
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,482
Tokens
SCENES WE'D LIKE TO SEE on youtube


---
Doctor: Okay, Ms KBill....you're getting really close now! Just need you do your breathing and give a few more pushes!

Ms KBill: Give me more fucking drugs!

Doc: (increases the opiod drip flow) There ya go....closer....breathe....push....breathe...push

MsKB: OH! OH! I can feel it coming....BILL! Can you see it? Is it a boy or a girl?!?

KB: Just a second, honey....Cowboys have fourth and goal and they're going for it!!

Haha that's why you plan your kids so they are born during the slow season.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Haha that's why you plan your kids so they are born during the slow season.

uh huh

SO how it probably went was:

MsKB: (In seductive sleepware)Honey, you told me to let you know when I was ovulating and I gotta say It's Right Now! Let's go for it!

KB: One sec honey, the Cowboys have fourth and goal and they're going for it!
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
Make no mistake of what the goal is here folks

Dont let the Lying Marxist fool you


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/zZ-6ebku3_E&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>



<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/gdx_2cuPgQQ&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>



<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/o6ZH1ps20WA&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-8132946737606752";google_ad_width = 250;google_ad_height = 250;google_ad_format = "250x250_as";google_ad_type = "text";google_color_border = "F5F5FF";google_color_bg = "F5F5FF";google_color_link = "22229C";google_color_text = "000000";google_color_url = "FFFFFF";//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT>google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</SCRIPT>
 

Pro Handi-Craper My Picks are the shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,098
Tokens
No job. No insurance. Got to love unemployment. The fix get a job and get some insurance instead of that hummer or caddy. As everyone should learn in school priorities in life before luxuries.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
1,157
Tokens
In Canada it works well. Some American politicians want to make one of the largest decisions in the countries history because of some anecdotal evidence about a friend of a friend had to wait.

But with the government/Lottery financed health care people have more money to invest in the economy. Small businesses don't have to offer basic care for employees because they are covered under the government plan. This leaves them more money to reinvest into their business or use the money they save to offer extended health benefits such as Optical and Dental to attract better employees.

My experience with the Canadian Health Care System breaks down like this.

2 babies born via Cesarean Section
1 Broken hand fixed
Total cash out of pocket $30 because we wanted a TV in the Room.

I know a lot of you guys are getting sweet Union benefits but if you weren't Union families, How much would that cost the average person in the US?

Check back into this thread when someone in your family is diagnosed with cancer.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
I'll bite, CREEG

Tell us what is likely to happen when one of KBill's family members covered under the Canadian single-payer insurance is diagnosed with cancer
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,129
Tokens
why can't liberals be truthful when talking policy?

lies, lies, lies and more lies, the art of deception, how simple things are used to confuse simple minds

the numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?

When discussing health insurance we frequently hear that there are “46 million uninsured” in America. This figure is from a monthly survey of about 50,000 households done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. This Current Population Survey (CPS) then uses statistical techniques to paint a picture of the entire U.S. population.
Advocates for expanding taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, and their allies in the press, repeat this 46 million number constantly. It paints the following technically accurate but misleading picture:



This looks really bad. At least there are more than 250 million people with health insurance – that is clearly a good thing that we never hear it in the press. Still, there’s a lot of red there. It means that in 2007 (15%) of Americans lacked health insurance, according to the CPS. Advocates, some elected officials, and the press round that number up to “1 in 6 Americans”. We hear that there are “46 million uninsured,” and then we jump to the conclusion that government needs to help 46 million people buy health insurance, subsidized by taxpayers.
Let’s look inside that 45.7 million number and see what we can learn. Here is our key graph:

First, I need to make a technical disclaimer. I had this same detailed breakdown for 2005 data, done by health experts when I was part of the Bush Administration. I now have a 2007 total (45.7 million), and so I have proportionately adjusted the components to match that new total. It is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but I am confident that it is solid, and it does not move any component by more than two hundred thousand. In addition, the expert analysis I am using ensures that the subdivisions shown above do not overlap. I will slightly oversimplify that point in the following description of the breakdown to make the explanation readable.
Let us walk through the graph from top to bottom.

  • There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.
  • Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.
  • Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.
  • Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.
  • Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.
  • Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.
  • The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
    • U.S. citizens;
    • with income below 300% of poverty;
    • not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
    • and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.
As a policy matter, we care not about the total number of uninsured, but about the subset of that group that we think “deserves” taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. That is a judgment call that involves some value choices.
I will make one value choice for you and boldly assert that, if you are already enrolled in or eligible for one free or heavily subsidized health insurance program, we can rule you out as needing a second. That simple statement reduces the 45.7 million number down to 35 million, by excluding the Medicaid undercount and Medicaid/SCHIP eligible from our potential target population.
I think most people would also say that the 10.6 million I have labeled as “remaining uninsured” and shaded in yellow above are the most sympathetic target population.
It then gets tricky.

  • Should people with incomes near or above the national median get health insurance subsidized by taxpayers?
  • How about non-citizens? Should we distinguish between documented and undocumented non-citizens? Between those who pay taxes and those who do not? Remember that we are not talking about who should get emergency medical care, but instead who should get taxpayer subsidies to finance the purchase of pre-paid health insurance. Does that change your answer?
  • Many young adults and childless couples are in good to excellent health. Do they deserve subsidies, when they may be making what they believe to be a rational economic decision and using their financial resources for things other than buying health insurance? Should a 25-year old Yale graduate triathlete making $30K per year get his health insurance subsidized by taxpayers if he chooses not to buy it because his budget is tight?
There is no clear right or wrong answer to the above questions. You need to make your own value choices for them.
Now let us look at the effects on the totals for several hypothetical answers to these questions. Remember that the advocates, some elected officials, and press tell us that the numbers are: 46 million uninsured, 15% of the population, and 1 in 6 Americans “are uninsured.” I suggest you try to figure out which of the following is closest to your view.

  1. Ann wants to subsidize everybody, but agrees that we don’t need to double-subsidize. She excludes the Medicaid undercount and Medicaid/SHIP eligible from her target population and ends up with 35 million people. That is still an enormous amount, but it is 10.7 million less than the headline number she heard in the news. Her target population is now 11.7% of the total U.S. population, down from 15%. Put another way, she would like taxpayers to help between 1 in 8 and 1 in 9 Americans who she feels are deserving of subsidies to buy health insurance, rather than the 1 in 6 she heard in the press.
  2. Bob agrees with Ann, but thinks that subsidies should go to the poor, or at least not to those who have above the median (or near median) incomes. His target population is therefore about 25 million people, way down from 46 million. That is 8.4% of the total U.S. population, or 1 in 12 Americans. That is still a huge problem, but it is very different from 1 in 6.
  3. Carla agrees with Bob that subsidies should not go to those with incomes near or above the national median. She also thinks that undocumented citizens should get emergency medical care, but not taxpayer-subsidized pre-paid health insurance. I will guess a 50/50 split between documented and undocumented of the 9.3 million uninsured non-citizen, and I would appreciate it if someone could help me refine this. With this assumption, Carla’s target population is about 21 million, or 7% of the total U.S. population. That is roughly 1 in 14 Americans.
  4. Doug thinks only American citizens with incomes below the national median (and who are not already eligible for another program) should be eligible for additional aid. His target population is therefore the bottom two bars on the graph, or 15.6 million people. That is 5.2% of the U.S. population, or 1 in 19 Americans. If Doug were to further limit subsidies to those below 200% of poverty or 150%, his target population would be a few million people smaller.
  5. Edie agrees with Doug, but thinks that if you are a young adult without kids, you should fend for yourself. Her target population is 10.6 million people, or 3.5% of the total U.S. population. That is 1 in 28 Americans.
These are, of course, not the only possible answers, but I think they are a representative bunch. Even for the most “liberal” set of answers (Ann’s), the headline numbers we hear in the press overstate the extent of the problem by more than 10 million people.
Now even Edie’s narrowest 10.6 million target population is still a lot of people who lack health insurance. So why does it matter that the press gets the numbers wrong?

  1. If we misdiagnose the problem, we could easily design the wrong policy solution. A solid quantitative understanding of who we would like to help and why is important.
  2. Health insurance subsidies cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year. If we target these funds well and prioritize, we can help more of the people whom we think are deserving of additional assistance, and fewer of those who need less help. If we target those funds poorly, we will waste a lot of money. This point is independent of the total amount we spend on subsidizing health insurance.
  3. Health insurance competes with other policy goals for an enormous but still ultimately limited pool of taxpayer funds. We should neither overstate nor understate the problem to be solved, so that the tradeoffs with other policy goals can be considered fairly.
When you hear “46 million uninsured,” or “1 in 6 Americans don’t have health insurance,” remember that this is technically correct but misleading. The more important question is, “How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?”
<cite class="fn">
</cite>





---------------------------------------------------------
 

That settles it...It's WED/DAY
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,463
Tokens
Again Obama does not want to address the problem which is tort reform and reforming the Medicare/Medicaid payment system to make it easier to understand and bill correctly. Just heard that the trial lawyers gave Obama a significant sum of money for his campaign when he was running for president which is the main reason why he will not touch the lawyers. He is a joke. He is an out of control woman at the mall with a credit card just racking up a high debt on waste.

OBAMA WAKE UP....WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD! Do we need to reduce cost? Of couse, but go after the real problems above. We dont need reform, we need a few changes. We can help out the true uninsured (5-10 million) people with those changes. We do not need reform.
 

Pro Handi-Craper My Picks are the shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,098
Tokens
If 253.4 have it and 45.7 million dont i do not see what the big deal is. Get the 5 million childern some kind of health insurance and let the other 40 million die. problem solved. I am pretty sure if you look at the 40 million left without you would find that more than half are non productive people living off the system. this could solve many problems.
 

Officially Punching out Nov 25th
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,482
Tokens
Check back into this thread when someone in your family is diagnosed with cancer.

A few have and all the treatments were covered by the government health insurance. I don't see your point.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Again Obama does not want to address the problem which is tort reform and reforming the Medicare/Medicaid payment system to make it easier to understand and bill correctly. Just heard that the trial lawyers gave Obama a significant sum of money for his campaign when he was running for president which is the main reason why he will not touch the lawyers. He is a joke. He is an out of control woman at the mall with a credit card just racking up a high debt on waste.

OBAMA WAKE UP....WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD! Do we need to reduce cost? Of couse, but go after the real problems above. We dont need reform, we need a few changes. We can help out the true uninsured (5-10 million) people with those changes. We do not need reform.

Are you in this business? Asking because I never understood the billing when I was covered by private insurance. When I went to Medicare it was the same gobbly goop. I just assumed that it was written in insurancesse.

If you are good at reading all that I could use some help with my phone bill.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Check back into this thread when someone in your family is diagnosed with cancer.

2 of my guys are being treated for cancer now one in the VA the other under Medicare. I see no diffirence in the treatment friends under private heathcare have recived except for one that was denied coverage under private insurance. Lucky for him he was over 65 and had medicare.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,129
Tokens
2 of my guys are being treated for cancer now one in the VA the other under Medicare. I see no diffirence in the treatment friends under private heathcare have recived except for one that was denied coverage under private insurance. Lucky for him he was over 65 and had medicare.

I'm pretty sure medicare is supposed to be first in line once somebody turns 65, thus supplemental insurance would deny any claim that went to them first. I wish the best to your guys.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
641
Tokens
No job. No insurance. Got to love unemployment. The fix get a job and get some insurance instead of that hummer or caddy. As everyone should learn in school priorities in life before luxuries.

Looks like having a job won't save her, she's a medical loss for insurance. Just like you but you don't know it yet.

MegansCircle_medium.jpg


Megan Altadena, CA

Blue Shield of California is denying me life-saving and life-prolonging treatments. I am 36 years old and have Blue Shield HMO health insurance coverage through my employer. In January 2009, I was diagnosed with metastatic (stage 4) breast cancer. When discovered, it had already spread to my bones, lungs, liver, and brain. My doctors prescribed a medication that targets and removes the cancer throughout the body like a "smart bomb"; however Blue Shield of California denied coverage of my doctors' recommended treatment. Blue Shield also denied a radiation procedure that would target and remove the two lesions in my brain. In both cases, Blue Shield denied the original requests and subsequent appeals I filed on the grounds that the treatments are not a medical necessity. I have learned that insurance companies will use "medical necessity" as an excuse to not cover treatment when it appears that the patient is "too sick" (read: not worth it). I am paying out-of-pocket for these life-saving and life-prolonging treatments, and intend to file an appeal to the State Dept. of Managed Care. A Seattle journalist who runs the website www.assertivepatient.com posted this article on my situation: http://www.assertivepatient.com/2009/03/ive-run-out-of-words-for-outrage.html My friends have started a group on Facebook called "Megan's Circle" which will provide updates on my battle with Blue Shield, and collect donations to help defer the costs of the denied treatments. Megan Jones Altadena, CA
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
MegansCircle_medium.jpg


Megan Altadena, CA

Blue Shield of California is denying me life-saving and life-prolonging treatments. I am 36 years old and have Blue Shield HMO health insurance coverage through my employer. In January 2009, I was diagnosed with metastatic (stage 4) breast cancer. When discovered, it had already spread to my bones, lungs, liver, and brain. My doctors prescribed a medication that targets and removes the cancer throughout the body like a "smart bomb"; however Blue Shield of California denied coverage of my doctors' recommended treatment. Blue Shield also denied a radiation procedure that would target and remove the two lesions in my brain. In both cases, Blue Shield denied the original requests and subsequent appeals I filed on the grounds that the treatments are not a medical necessity. I have learned that insurance companies will use "medical necessity" as an excuse to not cover treatment when it appears that the patient is "too sick" (read: not worth it). I am paying out-of-pocket for these life-saving and life-prolonging treatments, and intend to file an appeal to the State Dept. of Managed Care. A Seattle journalist who runs the website www.assertivepatient.com posted this article on my situation: http://www.assertivepatient.com/2009/03/ive-run-out-of-words-for-outrage.html My friends have started a group on Facebook called "Megan's Circle" which will provide updates on my battle with Blue Shield, and collect donations to help defer the costs of the denied treatments. Megan Jones Altadena, CA

In January 2009, I was diagnosed with metastatic (stage 4) breast cancer. When discovered, it had already spread to my bones, lungs, liver, and brain[/QUOTE]

There is no treatment in the world ...no matter the cost...for what she has.

"Treatment" meaning something that will stop it from taking her life very soon.

Just sayin...God bless her poor soul.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,828
Messages
13,573,685
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com