BF2S Forums Healthcare support goes under 50%

On the subject of HC.

I was shopping at my local grocery store today and I decided to swing by their pharmacy to get a quote on my prescribed medicine. My private insurance plan is good, but it does not cover prescriptions. I was paying $29.00 for 30 pills. When I asked the lady about the price she asked me if I had insurance. I said yes but not for prescriptions. She replied, "well lets see what we can do". I was told that if I joined their prescription program for $10 my medicine would only be $4.99. That is half price for the script including the sign up fee. From now on that prescription will only cost $4.99 total. She then told me that if I asked my Doctor to write the script for 90 at a time (it's an on going prescription) that it would only cost $10.99 for 90.

Point: My medicine went from about $1 a pill to $0.10 a pill because I used the power of competition. Negotiating and looking for a better deal is my passion .

DrunkFace wrote:

From the sounds of it, you did nothing and it was all the lady at the counter just being nice.

I said negotiating and looking for a better deal because they go hand in hand. I also left out parts of the conversation like "well this is what they do, what can you do". .. as well as offering my loyalty. They will get their profits over the long haul. If I had just said fill this prescription it would have been 30 bucks. .. but yea she was nice.

I shopped in an open and free market.. that is the point. If more people did this the effects of competition would be greater.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

/me taps impatiently waiting for CP's reply

What's to reply? Here in Europe I pay less for medicine, paradoxically, because the cost is borne across everyone. The free market is not some panacea to cure all ills, as evident from the problems in the US healthcare system - one of the issues upon which Obama was elected to office in a landslide. Implementing a free market in the electricity sector for instance led to rolling blackouts in California and gigantic price rises for electricity in Ireland. Sometimes an issue MUST be dealt with socially rather than based on some idealistic model - usually those issues that are incredibly important. Kmar had that €29 to hand every month and could happily pay for his medicine. For some sectors of society that monthly expenditure - even discounted through some bargaining - can prove the difference between head above water and head below water, especially for those trying to maintain a family (breeding the workers, innovators and taxpayers of tomorrow). From what little I've read on the US situation there are masses of these types of people with no cover by dint of how society there has developed. By all accounts the US Medicaid system is woefully inadequate in dealing with what is essentially a social issue - the health of the nation is the wealth of tomorrow's nation. The problem will probably be made more markedly obvious in a prolonged recession, like this one, where sectors of society will potentially be crippled when they are at their most vulnerable - simply because government had not organised itself and made financial provision (through taxation) for adequate healthcare in such times.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-22 01:39:39)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2 - What do you have to say about the competition though?

You can get better prices for the same prescription medicine if you shop around. UHC does not prohibit competition - those above a certains means level do not get free medicine - they get heavily discounted medicine.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to prove the quality of care is equal or better as well.

Healthcare here is of a perfectly adequate quality. And look at the paragon of world healthcare UHC or otherwise - Canada. Any problems that beset any of the other developed nations with UHC pale in comparison to those in the US, from what I gather (I'm not Mr. Expert on USA).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yet as we are in a recession, tax revenues are down, the program can't pay for itself = moar debt and/or government spending goes down even lower, recession gets worse, etc.

Denmark's taxation levels are astronomical in comparison to that of the US and yet they can fully fund a UHC system that is fantastic from cradle to grave and enjoy considerable prosperity - nobody needs to worry about their health in a downturn there. They still have positive economic growth in this shitfest we are currently  experiencing. Why can't this be like that in the US? Basically because the US started off on the wrong foot when it came to healthcare and are probably past the point of no return in terms of implementing it. It is probably impossible at this stage. The problem is that an absolute sea-change is necessary and that is not always possible.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...by turning the haves into have nots at least as much (if not more because of inefficiencies) as you turn the have nots into haves.

Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-22 02:53:23)

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You're not a US citizen. I wouldn't expect Ireland's government to pay for my medical care if I got sick while there. Why didn't your beneficent government cover your medical treatment with your panacea of UHC?

Sounds like you need a radical change to Ireland's entire method of healthcare coverage.

My visa was supposed to afford me all the rights of a working person within the US. I paid my taxes to the US exchequer. My girlfriend is a Canadian living in Ireland and she is entitled to all of the benefits of citizenship, without actually being a citizen, through her working visa and the fact she pays taxes here. If I had been in Ireland, rest assured, my eye problem would have been quickly and cheaply resolved. Unfortunately the word universal is a misnomer - it doesn't transcend borders, I don't think it does anywhere.

And don't get me wrong here - I really enjoyed my summer in the US.

Our private insurance DOES cover us (normally) in other countries.

But it sucks and should be done away with and replaced with something else.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2 - What do you have to say about the competition though?

You can get better prices for the same prescription medicine if you shop around. UHC does not prohibit competition - those above a certains means level do not get free medicine - they get heavily discounted medicine.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to prove the quality of care is equal or better as well.

Healthcare here is of a perfectly adequate quality. And look at the paragon of world healthcare UHC or otherwise - Canada. Any problems that beset any of the other developed nations with UHC pale in comparison to those in the US, from what I gather (I'm not Mr. Expert on USA).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yet as we are in a recession, tax revenues are down, the program can't pay for itself = moar debt and/or government spending goes down even lower, recession gets worse, etc.

Denmark's taxation levels are astronomical in comparison to that of the US and yet they can fully fund a UHC system that is fantastic from cradle to grave and enjoy considerable prosperity - nobody needs to worry about their health in a downturn there. They still have positive economic growth in this shitfest we are currently  experiencing. Why can't this be like that in the US? Basically because the US started off on the wrong foot when it came to healthcare and are probably past the point of no return in terms of implementing it. It is probably impossible at this stage. The problem is that an absolute sea-change is necessary and that is not always possible.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...by turning the haves into have nots at least as much (if not more because of inefficiencies) as you turn the have nots into haves.

Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.

the "have nots" are afforded every opportunity and assistance to better their lives, they are given the glass and shown the way to the water, if they choose not to pursue it and drink from the fountain, that is on them not the rest of us.

We are not a nation of royalty, whereas you are born unto an elite bloodline and hence you are rich and will remain rich regardless as to your actions, while a peasant is a peasant and nothing will change that, or be allowed to change that. So your comparison is not accurate. We have free will, some use it some do not.

those that exercise their free will to achieve through effort and work, and sound decision, should not be HELD accountable for those that choose not to.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-22 06:02:41)

lowing wrote:

the "have nots" are afforded every opportunity and assistance to better their lives, they are given the glass and shown the way to the water, if they choose not to pursue it and drink from the fountain, that is on them not the rest of us.

No they aren't. Full stop. You seem to be utterly oblivious to the difficulties faced by the strata of people who are trapped in the in-between phase between have and have not. And the impact is 'on the rest of us' when the situation becomes too dire - or hadn't you noticed the millions of job losses caused by the idiocy of individuals and banks alike over the past couple of years. Sheesh - blinkered life must be serene. And a very direct impact 'on you' is that you now are governed by a party and president that you loathe - go figure Einstein.

What you want has already been put into practice - it's called Latin America. Move there if you think it's so great. You better hurry up though before they elect any more left wing future dictators.

PS Ireland is a Republic. We have a Uachtarain and a Taoiseach. And also -  what Bertster said!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-22 08:02:22)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

We are not a nation of royalty, whereas you are born unto an elite bloodline and hence you are rich and will remain rich regardless as to your actions, while a peasant is a peasant and nothing will change that, or be allowed to change that. So your comparison is not accurate. We have free will, some use it some do not.

Are you serious?

If so, that's fucking hilarious....

Yeah, I am serious, are YOU serious is the real question, I offer up govt. loans and grants as proof by all means do some googling you will find them. Now, if I am wrong, and these do not exist or you can not find them, let me know.

Do you really think people have no choice in America, that they are assigned?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

the "have nots" are afforded every opportunity and assistance to better their lives, they are given the glass and shown the way to the water, if they choose not to pursue it and drink from the fountain, that is on them not the rest of us.

No they aren't. Full stop. You seem to be utterly oblivious to the difficulties faced by the strata of people who are trapped in the in-between phase between have and have not. And the impact is 'on the rest of us' when the situation becomes too dire - or hadn't you noticed the millions of job losses caused by the idiocy of individuals and banks alike over the past couple of years. Sheesh - blinkered life must be serene. And a very direct impact 'on you' is that you now are governed by a party and president that you loathe - go figure Einstein.

What you want has already been put into practice - it's called Latin America. Move there if you think it's so great. You better hurry up though before they elect any more left wing future dictators.

PS Ireland is a Republic. We have a Uachtarain and a Taoiseach. And also -  what Bertster said!

YEAH they are full stop!! Look it up Cam, the grants and loans are there in place. Or is your definition as not afforded opportunity to mean you are not hand held or coddled or GIVEN a diploma that has not been earned. If this is what you mean by people are not afforded every opportunity well then you are correct.

Yeah I have noticed the job losses Cam, what is it you suggest I do about it, give the REST of the 40% of the money I keep away to social welfare? I guess  I could always sacrifice feeding MY family for the needs of the masses and hope Obama will feed us.

Or how about, we cut spending, cut taxes, stop raping everyone with money and let the money start flowing again. Neh, it would never work, socialism could not stand it I guess.

One thing I've always found interesting is how a government system basically works like a massive insurance company, whereas the private medical market involves multiple insurance companies.

You would think competition would drive prices down, but in most cases, there isn't much competition in local medical markets with regard to hospitals or insurance providers.

In effect, opponents of universal care are essentially implying that the idea behind insurance doesn't work overall.  Let me explain....

A private insurance provider is best able to cover its costs the larger its pool of paying customers is, unless a large portion of its customers just happen to be in bad health and require a lot of service.  A government run system would have the largest pool of customers possible (the general population).  While it is true that Americans aren't the healthiest people in general, there are more than enough healthy young people in the population that would pay into the system and would require very little service other than preventive care.   These people would easily cover the costs of less healthy people, at a much greater ease than a private insurance company could.

So, essentially, opponents of universal care are stressing competition but ignoring the cost spreading model of insurance itself.  If you really examine the logic of many of them, it basically would suggest that insurance itself is a bad idea.

SEREMAKER wrote:

we pay up the ass to have it and then pay again when we use it but you get cared for ASAP on the flip side the govt pays for it and you get cared for eventually and if you got something major, well it'll be awhile and you may like one doctor but the bill payer(govt) wants you to go see whom they like ..... oh and if you have out-lived your usefullness, goodbye

The fuck are you on about?

The longest I have ever had to wait to see a doctor is about 20 minutes, and I have always had the option to choose which ever doctor I wanted.

SEREMAKER wrote:

you know - noone has the right healthcare ...... across the board, every single country ( well the rich ones) .... no-one has it right and probably never will

we pay up the ass to have it and then pay again when we use it but you get cared for ASAP on the flip side the govt pays for it and you get cared for eventually and if you got something major, well it'll be awhile and you may like one doctor but the bill payer(govt) wants you to go see whom they like ..... oh and if you have out-lived your usefullness, goodbye

Not only does this bill give you this "right" of health care, but it will actually fine you for not having signing on.

DrunkFace wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

we pay up the ass to have it and then pay again when we use it but you get cared for ASAP on the flip side the govt pays for it and you get cared for eventually and if you got something major, well it'll be awhile and you may like one doctor but the bill payer(govt) wants you to go see whom they like ..... oh and if you have out-lived your usefullness, goodbye

The fuck are you on about?

The longest I have ever had to wait to see a doctor is about 20 minutes, and I have always had the option to choose which ever doctor I wanted.

So why then is health care broken and need to be voted on yesterday??

This will lead to rationing.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-07-22 21:17:24)