Welcome to Gaia! ::

remember that fat doesnt equal unhealthy. correlation is not causation. some people whom are big may have unhealthy lifestyles that cause both fat and health problems. but it is the actions that cause the problems, not the fat itself. i am genetically fat. i eat almost nothing but fresh veggies (and not iceberg lettuce. stuff thats full of vitamins and stuff) and live relatively active. my blood numbers all say im healthy, but people still assume that because i'm 265lbs that i must be an unhealthy person who eats nothing but crisps and sits around. and im not the only one. there's alot of us in the "healthy at every size" camp. i cant get private insurance because of my weight, if i ever get hurt, i'm SOL because insurance companies look for any excuse not to cover people. my one daughter cant get insurance because she was born with a heart problem. even though it hasnt effected her, she will never see private insurance either. i wish america would hurry up and do socialized health care because its a necessity, not a privilege like the status quo would have us think.

wink I'm going to pretend that the topic of weight didn't come up, but if anyone is truly unsatisfied with that then you can pretend I told you [my weight].

(Edit: Disclaimer: The following rant pertains to the U.S. healthcare system. I have a business degree and a love of economics so it got a bit long. It is meant in the spirit of friendly academic debate- opposing viewpoints welcomed.)

I'm against universally mandating health insurance for all, whether it is forcing everyone to buy it or having the government pay for everyone's health care. I do not think that such a system will lead to improved conditions for all (which I hope is the goal). I'll explain my reasoning:

Giving everyone (or requiring people to buy) health insurance does not increase the supply of medical care available. There are only a certain number of medical providers who are both willing and able to provide healthcare to people. Let's assume, to make this easy to understand, that the number of health care providers who are both willing and able to provide health care will not decrease. Let's also assume, that because most doctors require patients to make appointments and those appointments are generally not for the same day, that the demand for health care providers already exceeds the current supply (otherwise, arguably, the doctors' appointment books would be empty and a person could walk into a doctor's office and be seen immediately.) Now, let's look at what would happen to demand for healthcare. Only people who are both willing to receive healthcare at its current cost and are able to pay that cost demand healthcare. We assume that more people exist that are willing to receive healthcare but are not able to afford it. The healthcare mandate is intended to allow those people to have the ability to afford healthcare, let's assume it works and now these people are able to demand healthcare as well. So, demand has increased, but supply has held steady. According to the law of supply and demand, when demand increases but supply stays the same, price will increase. Since somebody will inevitably say suggest that we impose a price ceiling to keep price from increasing, let's now assume that we have done just that and told every doctor across the country that there is a limit to the amount of money that they can charge for each and every thing they do. Supply still does not increase. Demand has still risen. The only difference now is that we are not using price to determine who gets the limited supply of healthcare. At this point, we could choose whether amount need or first-in-line determines who gets the healthcare, but the end result will be the same: somebody will have to wait, and in some countries the wait has proven to be months or even years, to receive healthcare. I honestly do not think it is any more fair to tell someone that they can't have healthcare this year because there is a line than to tell them that they can't have healthcare this year because they can't afford it.

I do, however, have an alternate approach. Instead of increasing demand, let's increase supply. Let's take all of the money that the government has proposed to spend on insurance for all and instead invest it in education. Let's create new scholarships to make medical school more affordable to students who wish to pursue a healthcare degree. Let's set-up incentive programs to entice medical schools to accept more students and increase the size of their programs. Let's also encourage more medical schools to open. So, let's assume our programs work and the supply of healthcare providers increases. We have done nothing to change demand, so demand remains steady. According to the law of supply and demand, when supply increases and demand remains the same, price decreases. At the new lower price, more people will now be able to afford healthcare and will now demand healthcare until supply and demand are balanced (equilibrium). As an added bonus, we have created more jobs in the economy- doctor jobs, teaching jobs, support staff jobs. In addition, we have a more educated society. Even better, we didn't have to give up our free-market economy to do it.

@dragon_of_emry:
Funding eduction is a nice long-term goal but in the meantime when I need a preventive check-up because I haven't had one in six years due to lack of insurance, your idea doesn't help me much at all.

I also disagree with government mandating insurance because that's going about it all wrong. People who can't afford to buy insurance still can't afford to buy it even when it's required of them and even with the meager credits the government has offered in the HCR bill. You do understand that just having the insurance plan is not the total cost of health care, right? There are high deductibles and copays to be added on, and of course the limited providers in some areas along with non-covered services and prescriptions. In addition, even the best dental plans cover almost nothing, so while dental problems clearly correlate to medical issues such as heart valve infection, you can't use your medical insurance for dental care and dental insurance is a joke.

We need separate systems as they have in other countries which includes a national health care system that is good but slower, and a separate private track which costs the individual but is faster.

The absolute power of private insurance companies is responsible for ruining the state of our healthcare system and until they are reined in it will not get better. As far as those who are knowingly killing themselves and those who are unknowingly doing so, a level of education needs to be provided and some limitations must be imposed beyond that if the education is ignored. As it stands health insurance companies have always dictated what is covered for their customers and yet every time the issue of national health care comes up we hear cries of "Socialism! The government is going to tell us who deserves care and who doesn't! We can't stand for that!" Even though that's exactly how all the private companies have been doing it forever. Why is it ok if a capitalist system dictates our care and somehow it's evil if it's socialism based? Either way a board of nurses and a doctor are looking at your medical records and determining if you deserve or need care without ever having seen you, and that is simply how it has to be if you're depending on a pool of funding, public or private, to pay for your care.

I believe in basic to intermediate preventative and sick care for all, and the option to purchase whatever additional advanced or experimental care you want and can afford.

Pharmaceutical companies also must be controlled. They must be forced to allow their patents to expire sooner and generics must be made for all drugs. There will still be rich old Republicans who can't imagine using a generic even even though it's exactly the same as their precious Viagra or Zocor. Everyone will still profit, but perhaps not as grossly as they do now.

what we need is a fair and equal nationall debate on all aspects of heath, and people need to be able to earn there treatment doesnt mean the poor should be denied. but theres too much reliance on nationalised standards of health as if people are the same.

@Ellavemia especially but everyone in general: I agree with much of what you have said, but not all. First, I completely understand about not being able to afford insurance, whether or not it is mandated. I am uninsured myself, have been for several years, and may not be able to get any for a long time. I am hoping when I find a job I will be able to get coverage through my employer. I, too, hate how insurance companies have hijacked the U.S. healthcare system. The cost for medical care, as Sunset alluded to, now includes the doctor's labor, the doctor's supplies and overhead, the doctor's staff which normally includes someone trained in coding and billing specifically to deal with insurance companies, the cost of the insurance claims adjuster, the insurance company's overhead, the insurance company's office staff, etc. Although insurance companies were a great solution to lack of health care for low-income workers when the programs started, they have now become a barrier. In my opinion, they should be eliminated from the equation entirely. It will probably never happen because the transition would be a very painful process. Without insurance costs in the way, and without the buying power of the insurance company to fund exorbitant fees incurred by small groups of people at the expense of everyone, price would be driven down for all goods and services. The problem is that it would not magically happen overnight, so the adjustment period would come with clear human costs in both lives and suffering. I don't have a solution for that; if I did, I would win a Nobel Prize. Sometimes there are no easy or painless solutions.
As to our current situation about not being able to afford healthcare I have a few tips and few dreams for things I would change. First, I had a wonderful class in college where the first thing the professor said is that everything is negotiable. I already knew this, but it is wonderful advice for anyone who hasn't realized the true extent of the statement. Never pay retail for anything, and that includes your healthcare. Most doctors will take cash payments. Not all, but most. In addition, since they are saving all the costs of dealing with the insurance companies when you pay in cash, many doctors will give you a discount when you pay in cash. My doctor gives me 30% off (just to give you an idea of what you might expect to reasonably get.) Also, most doctors do not like to give you their price list. They have one, but don't expect to ever see the whole thing. Do expect the office to quote you a price for any procedure you need before you get it done. Demand it (nicely). Remind them you are paying cash up-front and need to know how much to bring with you (that line has never failed me.) Next, get online and find the phone numbers of other practitioners in your area. Call around and ask how much it costs to have the same procedure done somewhere else. You would be shocked how much price varies from one practice to another. I needed an MRI last summer and my doctor wanted to charge over $900. I called my sister's doctor and they quoted me $435. I called a few other places, and the highest cost was over $3000! My sis's doc turned out to be cheapest, so I went there. Even if you don't actually go somewhere else, use the info to get a better price from your doc. Take advantage of health fairs. They are great sources of preventative care. You can get free check-ups, mamograms, diabetes screenings, etc depending on who the sponsor is. Go to more than one, they are normally free or low cost. Medical and dental colleges, while not always the most ideal place to receive healthcare from, are comparatively cheap and sometimes free for minor ailments. What I am mostly getting at is it is important to know about and take advantage of all of your options.
The last thing I wanted to say is something I debated about putting in my post last night is that we can work on more solutions to service the less-fortunate with the education program I mentioned. We could, for example, require any doctor who receives government funding to pay for medical school to provide X number of hours of pro-bono work as part of a work-study program or we could mandate that every medical school that receives government funding to treat X number of high need patients per year. There are many things we could try with this model.
By the way- not all republicans are rich, old, and heartless as we tend to get unfairly characterized. I am broke, young, and a generally a charitable and certainly understanding person. I am also a republican. Obviously, I care about the environment, too, or I wouldn't be here. I am not evil, I just have different ideas of how we should solve our current problems. Before anyone asks, no I don't agree with ALL of the republican agenda, but I do agree with a lot of it.
(Wow- another post just got a lot longer than I originally intended. Sorry about that!)

There are some good tools you can use to determine what you should be paying for care. I posted on on my blog just the other day:
http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Default.aspx

Around here the doctors stopped taking private pay people a long time ago due to not getting paid. I was still working for a physicians group around that time and that was twelve years ago. I'm not sure where in the country docs are still accepting private paying patients, but we live in a very depressed area where most people are near poverty level so I don't blame them at all for rejecting people who aren't guaranteed to pay up.

Edit: I don't care what your political leaning is, and I'm very well aware of my own. I don't seek to offend people with opposing views, but in this day and age it's going to happen. I apologize if my generalization struck a chord with anyone so I will rephrase it. Conservative people who are very set in their ways tend not to believe a generic drug will do the trick. That is their prerogative, and that is why I said that Big Pharma will continue to do well even if their patents should be allowed to expire a bite sooner.

I feel really bad that I underestimated you all. redface I thought I'd get a few lined replies, but nothing like this! We need moar threads like this! heart

I will do a real reply - just short on time at the moment.

You guys rock!