Help me understand the outcry against a "public option"

[bane]

For fear of repeating myself, allow someone who lives in a country with public and private health insurance to explain how it works.

In the UK, we are automatically guaranteed treatment by the National Health Service free at point of demand. This is partly funded by a tax called National Insurance, which also goes some way to our final state pension. The National Health Service, although an admittedly bloated organisation, provides everyting from General Practitioners to secondary care, surgery, outpatient treatment, pre- and post-natal services - the lot, basically.

However - wait times are of course an issues, especially with a popular service. Also, although the level of care is generally high, you tend to get better treatment privately. Essentially, if you're paying over the odds for the service, you should receive better accommodation (for hospital stays), prompter service and better after-care. Often, established doctors (especially surgeons) will hold public and private contracts, and in some cases the NHS bills private insurance companies for use of facilities and personnel.

So - what are the implications for the US? I see benefits. If, as here in the UK, you have a "basic" service provided by the state, it forces the private firms to get competitive. This means raising the level of provision - failure to do so would see people gravitate towards the cheaper service, ipso facto. Trust me - anyone with private plans should find a) premiums dropping and b) provision improving. It should also see some of the more unscrupulous practitioners in the insurance industry being weeded out.

Wylde, your argument is the ripest of bullshit. Hard-working folk with private plans should actually receive an improvement in their healthcare, as insurance companies fear their customers will gravitate towards the state option. Meanwhile, the poorest people should be able to receive basic coverage, at least. In theory, everyone's a winner; in practice it may not be perfect, but it's a vast improvement on your current system.

Humor me Cliff, what percentage of your income would you guess goes to the NHS? I'm curious to see how the cost out of pocket works out in the long run compared to our current system. I'm also assuming that many professionals carry private insurance as well? How big a chunk does that end up being in addition to the tax? I guess I could Google all this, but I'd much rather here it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

[chickenona]

Sorry,I just don't see it as cut/dry as you do. Who's to say what "extra's" someone should get.

What would you consider to be an "extra" health care expense/procedure that a richer person would deserve to get as opposed to a poorer one?

Think about what you're really saying here.

Suppose an uninsured working-poor family and a wealthy family with private insurance each have a child with a chronic illness that will almost certainly be fatal if not treated. The working poor family is headed by parents who have never been to college, don't plan on going, aren't that bright and won't ever break over ten bucks an hour at the jobs they perform just well enough not to lose. The wealthy family are completely self-made and worked hard for everything they have. Let's also add, however, for supposition's sake, that the poor family's kid happens to have an IQ of like 350 and if treated, will live to grow up to isolate the genome that causes cancer and obliterate it. The wealthy family's kid will grow up to sort of drift along in life and live off the family money, not harming anyone but not particularly accomplishing anything.

I've painted a little bit of a drama-queen picture of things here, but even given these facts nobody would have any way of knowing what they're saving or giving up in either case. The facts on hand only present two sick kids, one who can afford treatment, one who can't. But the point I'm making is this - money is a hideous thing to make a qualifier in who "deserves" care and who doesn't. Every human life is sacred. Health care should never, ever, ever be regarded as an "extra". It's essential for every human being, and should be treated as such. It is a human right that transcends mere money.

And yes, before anyone even starts, I know there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to health care. I'm not talking about the Constitution, or who deserves more stuff because they work harder, or any of that usual bullshit that defines the circular left-right argument in America. I'm talking about basic human decency and compassion. Nobody deserves to get sick and die just because they're poor. Period.

[MadmanShepherd]

Way too complex Chick. Most people get lost when you start personalizing an issue because they refuse (or are just too dumb) to see things like that.

Lets put it simply. With the public option poor people will get health care.

With the public option poor people will not be able to buy a Porsche nor get boob implants.

They will get life saving treatment.

Rich people can still get boob implants and porches. Booyah! It's as simple as that.

If a poor person gets a good job with better insurance, they might be able to get a boob job on their plan.

[JakeYonkel]

The outcry is that people don't want more taxes to pay for other people's shit. Right or wrong, there's your answer.

[bane]

Sorry,I just don't see it as cut/dry as you do. Who's to say what "extra's" someone should get.

What would you consider to be an "extra" health care expense/procedure that a richer person would deserve to get as opposed to a poorer one?

Think about what you're really saying here.

Suppose an uninsured working-poor family and a wealthy family with private insurance each have a child with a chronic illness that will almost certainly be fatal if not treated. The working poor family is headed by parents who have never been to college, don't plan on going, aren't that bright and won't ever break over ten bucks an hour at the jobs they perform just well enough not to lose. The wealthy family are completely self-made and worked hard for everything they have. Let's also add, however, for supposition's sake, that the poor family's kid happens to have an IQ of like 350 and if treated, will live to grow up to isolate the genome that causes cancer and obliterate it. The wealthy family's kid will grow up to sort of drift along in life and live off the family money, not harming anyone but not particularly accomplishing anything.

I've painted a little bit of a drama-queen picture of things here, but even given these facts nobody would have any way of knowing what they're saving or giving up in either case. The facts on hand only present two sick kids, one who can afford treatment, one who can't. But the point I'm making is this - money is a hideous thing to make a qualifier in who "deserves" care and who doesn't. Every human life is sacred. Health care should never, ever, ever be regarded as an "extra". It's essential for every human being, and should be treated as such. It is a human right that transcends mere money.

And yes, before anyone even starts, I know there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to health care. I'm not talking about the Constitution, or who deserves more stuff because they work harder, or any of that usual bullshit that defines the circular left-right argument in America. I'm talking about basic human decency and compassion. Nobody deserves to get sick and die just because they're poor. Period.

While I agree that nobody in this country should be denied healthcare due to their financial situation, you're painting a picture that simply doesn't exist. It just doesn't. People don't "get sick and die" because they're poor. If you're sick, you can go to any hospital in the country and get treated, no matter what your financial situation is. You may get transferred to a charity hospital or something if your illness requires an admittance, and you may have to wait in a very long line, but you will get treated. That applies doubly for children. St Judes? Shriners? There are plenty more that I could come up with. You make it sound like we're a bunch of "let them eat cake" barbarians.

[JakeYonkel]

In chick's hysterical world, people are dying on the streets left and right.

Maybe she should just go away again.

[bane]

In chick's hysterical world, people are dying on the streets left and right.

Maybe she should just go away again.

I wouldn't go that far. I may think she's pretty far off base on this one, but Chicke is still full of awesome.

[wylde342]

Chick,

I'm not going to touch your post. It's too sensationalized a view. Poor people, like others said, aren't running around the streets dying.

Another poster said it best - we don't want to have our taxes raised. If you think there is ANY other way it will be paid for, pull the wool back.

[chickenona]

In chick's hysterical world, people are dying on the streets left and right.

Maybe she should just go away again.

And maybe you should slap a tampon in that shit, you sheltered little bitch. Where do you get "hysteria" from what I wrote? I asked a fucking question - do you think wealth and insurance should really determine who gets the care they need, or don't you?

I never said anything like that. I never said people are keeling over in the streets dying. What I said is that health care is a human right, and coverage is not an "extra" to which you should only be entitled if you "work really hard and succeed".

The working poor are getting screwed without a public option. But hey, "our" taxes aren't getting raised under the current system, and that's all that matters!

I'll ask the question again, for anybody who's not going to get all defensive and read a bunch of shit into my post that I never said. Is there anybody who's really ready to stand here and say that money should determine who gets care and who doesn't? Come the fuck on.

[bane]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

[wylde342]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

This - to a tee. Especially the last sentence.

[MadmanShepherd]

That is such bullshit.

Prime rib and mansions don't equate to a decent standard of living. You can live an excellent life without those.

Life saving treatments do equate to a decent life and you sure as fuck won't have a decent life if you die from lack of treatment. And you're worried about a few extra dollars from your pocket.

Do you realize if we got rid of the subsidies to insurance companies that would pay for the public option right there and no taxes would be raised.

[lerxstcat]

While I agree that nobody in this country should be denied healthcare due to their financial situation, you're painting a picture that simply doesn't exist. It just doesn't. People don't "get sick and die" because they're poor. If you're sick, you can go to any hospital in the country and get treated, no matter what your financial situation is. You may get transferred to a charity hospital or something if your illness requires an admittance, and you may have to wait in a very long line, but you will get treated. That applies doubly for children. St Judes? Shriners? There are plenty more that I could come up with. You make it sound like we're a bunch of "let them eat cake" barbarians.

You're wrong. I personally know at least one person who IS going to die because he has liver disease that required a surgery to correct. His disability didn't come through until his condition was too far advanced, now he's no longer a candiddate for surgery.

Bottom line: Ther surgeon would rather play one more round of golf than do one pro bono surgery, simply because the guy was in critical condition. You might get pallitative medicine, but you won't get the life-saving surgery, if you don't have insurance.

[CliffByford]

BANE:

A good question, as it is not one that is easily answered. In short, we pay for the NHS through our National Insurance Contribution, but this is no simple tax. For a start, this pays for health, unemployment and child benefit, alongside the state pension. There are various bands related to earnings, but your NIC is worked out as a proportion of gross earnings accrued, which is then added to by the employer. Self-employed contributions are worked out on the basis of net earnings.

The typical rate for National Insurance is 11% of gross earnings. I pay this rate.

In any case, you guys pay more as a percentage on GDP than any other nation in the world for public and private healthcare combined. Yet you do not grant comprehensive health coverage to all citizens (being the last developed country in the world failing to do this; you've been pipped to the post by South Africa) and mortality/life expectancy rates are nothing to write home about.

Current expenditure on PUBLIC healthcare in the US is only .3% of GDP behind the UK and Norway, both of which enjoy comprehensive healthcare. Seriously; numbers like that indicate you should have de facto comprehensive healthcare when viewed in comparison with other nations. And yet, whilst the UK only spends 1.1% of GDP on private healthcare, the profligate American system absorbs a huge 8.3%.

This suggests what? Two things; that you're not getting your money's worth out of your public provision but, equally as important, that your private sector is appallingly inefficient. The total spend on health in America should put your top of the charts on every health indicator; instead, you have poor people checking themselves into emergency wards for problems that should have been addressed long before that sad necessity.

Please, put aside politics and see sense on this issue.

[chickenona]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

And you guys are still not answering my question.

Charity hospitals aren't covering the whole shot for poor sick kids. If they were, we wouldn't even be having this debate. And anyone who's reluctant to see their tax dollars going towards healthcare for the poor aren't likely to dig into their pockets to fund those hospitals either.

Everyone deserves equally good health care. It is something that should transcend money, and does in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.

[bane]

BANE:

A good question, as it is not one that is easily answered. In short, we pay for the NHS through our National Insurance Contribution, but this is no simple tax. For a start, this pays for health, unemployment and child benefit, alongside the state pension. There are various bands related to earnings, but your NIC is worked out as a proportion of gross earnings accrued, which is then added to by the employer. Self-employed contributions are worked out on the basis of net earnings.

The typical rate for National Insurance is 11% of gross earnings. I pay this rate.

In any case, you guys pay more as a percentage on GDP than any other nation in the world for public and private healthcare combined. Yet you do not grant comprehensive health coverage to all citizens (being the last developed country in the world failing to do this; you've been pipped to the post by South Africa) and mortality/life expectancy rates are nothing to write home about.

Current expenditure on PUBLIC healthcare in the US is only .3% of GDP behind the UK and Norway, both of which enjoy comprehensive healthcare. Seriously; numbers like that indicate you should have de facto comprehensive healthcare when viewed in comparison with other nations. And yet, whilst the UK only spends 1.1% of GDP on private healthcare, the profligate American system absorbs a huge 8.3%.

This suggests what? Two things; that you're not getting your money's worth out of your public provision but, equally as important, that your private sector is appallingly inefficient. The total spend on health in America should put your top of the charts on every health indicator; instead, you have poor people checking themselves into emergency wards for problems that should have been addressed long before that sad necessity.

Please, put aside politics and see sense on this issue.

That was the most comprehensive, and educational post I've seen yet on this subject. Interesting, and thought provoking. Thanks Cliff.

[bane]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

And you guys are still not answering my question.

Charity hospitals aren't covering the whole shot for poor sick kids. If they were, we wouldn't even be having this debate. And anyone who's reluctant to see their tax dollars going towards healthcare for the poor aren't likely to dig into their pockets to fund those hospitals either.

Everyone deserves equally good health care. It is something that should transcend money, and does in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.

I'm sorry. What exactly was your question again? Do I think that health care should be a basic human right? Yes, I do, at least as much as things like food and shelter. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my earlier posts. I thought I answered your question fairly succinctly. What exactly am I not answering Chicke?

[SmokeyRamone]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

And you guys are still not answering my question.

Charity hospitals aren't covering the whole shot for poor sick kids. If they were, we wouldn't even be having this debate. And anyone who's reluctant to see their tax dollars going towards healthcare for the poor aren't likely to dig into their pockets to fund those hospitals either.

Everyone deserves equally good health care. It is something that should transcend money, and does in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.

I'm sorry. What exactly was your question again? Do I think that health care should be a basic human right? Yes, I do, at least as much as things like food and shelter. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my earlier posts. I thought I answered your question fairly succinctly. What exactly am I not answering Chicke?

hunger and homeless are two more problems the government hasn't been able to solve, yet they manage to waste billions upon billions of dollars every year. They should just use Obama's health care plan as a template and pass a law forcing everyone to buy food and rent/or buy a place to live, and fine those that don't

[chickenona]

You're still arguing semantics Chicke. Currently, the poor don't suffer on healthcare any more than they do on any other basic human right. Are we feeding the hungry prime rib? Are we housing them in mansions? Of course not, the working poor shop at Walmart and live in apartments and mobile homes, but we do the best we can. Healthcare is the same way, at least in my eyes. I'd love to see every single citizen get top shelf healthcare. I'd like to see every last one of them eating prime rib too, but who is going to pay for it?

And you guys are still not answering my question.

Charity hospitals aren't covering the whole shot for poor sick kids. If they were, we wouldn't even be having this debate. And anyone who's reluctant to see their tax dollars going towards healthcare for the poor aren't likely to dig into their pockets to fund those hospitals either.

Everyone deserves equally good health care. It is something that should transcend money, and does in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION.

I'm sorry. What exactly was your question again? Do I think that health care should be a basic human right? Yes, I do, at least as much as things like food and shelter. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my earlier posts. I thought I answered your question fairly succinctly. What exactly am I not answering Chicke?

There has been a lot of rhetoric back and forth here so I may have missed it in your other posts but thanks for at least offering an explicit answer.

And I'm purposely being a pain in the ass here. I KNOW nobody here is actually saying that poor people aren't as deserving of decent health care just because they're poor. That would be a barbaric stance to take. But you have to understand, when you start calling any aspect of health care an "extra" or comparing better care to "prime rib" the sentiment I take away from that is "I care more about paying a few dollars less in taxes every year than I do about the health of other people and their kids. I've worked hard for MY money, every man for himself!"

So much of our tax money is already wasted, as Cliff has duly pointed out - more, in fact, than in other countries where they DO have a public option. And no, people dying in the streets isn't an everyday occurrence and I never said it was. But the fact of the matter is people without coverage ARE getting sick and in some cases dying in this country. Poor people without coverage are going to work sick and making those around them sicker. People with plans in place are often paying way too much for those plans. Self-employed people, as you pointed out, usually can't afford insurance themselves, even when they make decent bank and are growing their businesses. The fully privatized system is NOT working.

[bane]

Well, I do agree that the current system is broken. If, and I stress IF, we can find a way to do this that doesn't cause an undo burden on the taxpayers, and the way Cliff paints it, that should be possible, then we should do it, but I'm very leery about it. I just am. I don't have a lot of faith in the feds. The very same numbers that Cliff posted that show why we should be able to do this, also show how inept the government has been thus far. If we only pay .3% less than the UK does RIGHT NOW for public health, how much more of our money are they going to waste when we let them run with something like a public option? You see what I'm getting at?

[bane]

While I agree that nobody in this country should be denied healthcare due to their financial situation, you're painting a picture that simply doesn't exist. It just doesn't. People don't "get sick and die" because they're poor. If you're sick, you can go to any hospital in the country and get treated, no matter what your financial situation is. You may get transferred to a charity hospital or something if your illness requires an admittance, and you may have to wait in a very long line, but you will get treated. That applies doubly for children. St Judes? Shriners? There are plenty more that I could come up with. You make it sound like we're a bunch of "let them eat cake" barbarians.

You're wrong. I personally know at least one person who IS going to die because he has liver disease that required a surgery to correct. His disability didn't come through until his condition was too far advanced, now he's no longer a candiddate for surgery.

Bottom line: Ther surgeon would rather play one more round of golf than do one pro bono surgery, simply because the guy was in critical condition. You might get pallitative medicine, but you won't get the life-saving surgery, if you don't have insurance.

There are always exceptions, and the same exact thing happens to insured people all the time Lerx. It's a tragic story, but an all too common one. There are plenty of cases where surgeries aren't done because the insurance company weasels their way out of writing a check, but you already know that, but there are also plenty of cases of people letting things slide too long on their own steam. With all apologies and all due respect to you and your friend, you don't need a disability declaration to get surgery and letting something go until it is too late to correct isn't something I would put on society, you know? I'm not pointing fingers or saying that was the case here, but I can tell you of 4 people that I know personally that survived life threatening injuries or diseases without any insurance going through the charity hospital system. All of them required surgery and none of them are remotely close to wealthy. I'm not talking about simple sugeries either. One of them was a heart transplant. You have to work the system and watch out for yourself, but help is available in most cases if you're willing to be proactive about it.

[MickeyG]

There should be no "need" to "work" the system. Any health care system that requires anybody to "work" it, is fucked up beyond belief. It's a fucking joke anybody is defending the current way things work in America.

[lerxstcat]

There are always exceptions, and the same exact thing happens to insured people all the time Lerx. It's a tragic story, but an all too common one. There are plenty of cases where surgeries aren't done because the insurance company weasels their way out of writing a check, but you already know that, but there are also plenty of cases of people letting things slide too long on their own steam. With all apologies and all due respect to you and your friend, you don't need a disability declaration to get surgery and letting something go until it is too late to correct isn't something I would put on society, you know? I'm not pointing fingers or saying that was the case here, but I can tell you of 4 people that I know personally that survived life threatening injuries or diseases without any insurance going through the charity hospital system. All of them required surgery and none of them are remotely close to wealthy. I'm not talking about simple sugeries either. One of them was a heart transplant. You have to work the system and watch out for yourself, but help is available in most cases if you're willing to be proactive about it.

Oh, he's not a friend; in fact, I wish he'd go ahead and die, quite frankly. But he is someone I know, and if he'd had Medicaid there would have been ZERO question that the surgery would be done immediately. It was all about the money, and his doctor told him so straight out. "Sorry, but because you don't have Medicaid and disability yet, you can't have the surgery. You will die within a couple of years".

As far as letting things slide un til it's too late, you realize that without insurance, it's hard to tell a life-threatening illness from a nuisance that'll go away on its own, right? My congestive heart failure presented as flulike symptoms, initially. Wasn't til my kidneys shut down that I realized there was a major problem going on.

I'm guessing that you, personally, have not yet experienced a life-threatening illness, or if you have, it was after you got on your wife's insurance. If I'm wrong, my apologies. But since I HAVE dealt with it since 1998, I think I have an idea of how fucked the system is, that you have not personally gone through.

Pick a doctor? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Take what we've got, peon. Cardiologist? They don't work for peons. Every time I am hospitalized, they ask me who my cardiologist is, are astounded when I tell them I don't have one, then have no answer when I ask them if THEY know one who will see a patyiwent with no money and no insurance.

So I see a nurse practioner, not even a general M.D., when I go to the clinic. I have congestive heart failure, COPD, diabetes, severe hypertension, kidney disease and left side numbness from a stroke. No cardiologist, no physical therapy for the stroke, fighting to get seen by the nephrologist right now because I have no Medicaid.

There are people way worse off than me, Bane. But if I had had a basic healthcare system to go to for the past 30 years, none of my conditions would've gotten to the point they did. Preventive care would've meant no stroke, no CHF, no hypertension, no diabetes, or controlled at the outset at least.

It's not like I wasn't working and paying taxes fulltime for most of those years. I just happened to work for a small company that didn't provide health coverage for its employees, but kept saying that it was shopping for coverage and going to get it "soon". "Soon" didn't happen until AFTER I collapsed and went to the ER.

You might say that's my problem; well, what did YOU do, besides marry a chick who HAD insurance, yourself? Just sayin', there but for the grace of God goes YOU, dude...

Lookimng at the long run, people like me are already fucked to a point. But this shouldn't keep on happening when we've been discussing it since the 80s already.

[bane]

I haven't experienced what you have Lerx, but 18 years ago I did go through a very life threatening situation with my first wife and then unborn son. I got through it by lying my ass off to the hospital every time she was admitted and making payment arrangements etc. I wiped out my savings, maxed out every credit card I owned and promised to pay the rest. It ended up costing over 100 grand. I'm not ashamed to say that I never payed it all off. I payed as much as I could, but that was a mountain I couldn't climb. I still get an occasional bill from it today, so, yeah, I know a little bit about navigating the minefield of American health care for the uninsured.

As to going undiagnosed due to a lack of preventative care, well, all I can do is tell you how I did it. Even when I was uninsured I still got my physical every year and when I got sick I went to the doctor and payed them a couple hundred bucks. I had a heart scare back then too. I went to the ER where they admitted me and did their tests etc (which I of course was unable to pay for) I also followed up with a cardiologist. As I recall, he charged me a few hundred bucks for the appointment. It ended up being a bunch of todo over basically nothing thank God, but I didn't blow it off when I easily could have. I think if a guy blows off getting checked out because he can't or won't dig up the 200 bucks the doctor wants, then maybe he ought to check his priorities.

All that said, I do think that we need to find a way to help people in situations like yours. I do think that it's inexcusable that truly ill people can't get treatment or medications even when they are insured due to preexisting condition clauses and the like and I absolutely agree that we need to address that. I'm not convinced that our government is remotely close to doing it right though.

[lerxstcat]

I look at it like the interstate highway system; the government might have done it in a haphazard way over several decades, but nobody else was going to do it at all.

Sure the government will fuck up at first, but it's a necessity, not a luxury. Believe me, I was NOT able to afford a cardiologist, period. It wasn't a matter of not having priorities straight, either. It was a matter of having a low-paying job and trying to live in Los Angeles, and then being stuck in that job because now I had some serious health conditions.

I don't blame you for what you did, but I couldn't have dug up the money for the annual physical, no way. Most of the time when I got sick, I took to the bed until it was over. Then one day, seemed like I got the flu. But it never went away. Then my kidneys shut down and my sweat started smelling like piss. I went to the doctor then, walk-in clinic, with money I had to borrow from my boss. They said, we can't help you, go to the ER NOW or you're gonna die. Just like that.

So I went to the ER. BP was 209/144, stroke level. Didn't stroke that time though, not til later. But it wasn't like I had interim levels of problems that I ignored. You can't tell you have high blood pressure most of the time, and that, undiagnosed for years, cause my heart to enlarge to 3x normal size, which causes congestive heart failure.

By its nature, you don't see that coming until crisis level hits and ytou are collapsing. I don't know how your heart scare manifested, but that's what happened to me.

Anyway, nobody BUT the government is EVER going to revamp our healthcare system in a meaningful way. The me3dical insurance industry driving things now is as greedy as the homeowners insurance industry that fucked millions oif people after Katrina, who had paid premiums for 30 years.

So forgive me if I don't trust Big Medicine and Big Pharma to do what's right for us. It has to be government in the end, and the sooner we start, the sooner we slog out way through to something that works.

[chickenona]

The best healthcare network in America, in terms of quality, diligence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, is the VA.

[tin00can]

The best healthcare network in America, in terms of quality, diligence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, is the VA.

As a user of the VA healthcare system, I can vouch for the effectiveness of government-run healthcare. I fucking love it.

[JakeYonkel]

Right, but playing Devil's advocate here, the number of people using the VA is far shadowed by the potential number of users of the proposed plan.

[tin00can]

Right, but playing Devil's advocate here, the number of people using the VA is far shadowed by the potential number of users of the proposed plan.

But it DOES tend to nullify the "the government can't run anything effectively, why should we trust them to run healthcare!" argument. The government already does run a healthcare system and it works pretty well.

[chickenona]

Medicaid has done right by Paul the Junkie. He can get in to see any doctor and get any procedure he needs a hell of a lot more easily than the private Unilever plan that my family's stuck with, and it doesn't cost him a cent. The care he received when he was in jail was even better.

This is where it really gets frustrating to argue about this. Paul - a gay man with numerous health problems all brought on by a drug addiction for which he receives SSI - is the textbook example of the sort of person some of these right-wing types find so galling to have to pay for with their tax money. Under the current system, he's already getting better care on your dime than you probably are. At this point, how could a public option possibly be worse than the way it's done now?