Funny/Friendly Off topic discussion. Fail this test and threads will be migrated to Way Off Topic.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By HGXC
#383856
I was in the hospital years back receiving critical health care services and the p[atient in the next room received the same services. That patient was indigent. Under the Hill–Burton Act

....Facilities that received Hill-Burton funding had to adhere to several requirements:

They were not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or creed, though separate but equal facilities in the same area were allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down this segregation in 1963 when it denied certiorari to the Fourth Circuit decision Simkins v. Cone.[3]
Facilities that received funding were also required to provide a ‘reasonable volume’ of free care each year for those residents in the facility’s area who needed care but could not afford to pay. Hospitals were initially required to provide uncompensated care for 20 years after receiving funding. The federal money was also only provided in cases where the state and local municipality were willing and able to match the federal grant or loan, so that the federal portion only accounted for one third of the total construction or renovation cost.
The states and localities were also required to prove the economic viability of the facility in question. This excluded the poorest municipalities from the Hill-Burton program; the majority of funding went to middle class areas. It also served to prop up hospitals that were economically nonviable, retarding the development wrought by market forces. Once Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, participation in those programs was added to the list of requirements for access to Hill-Burton funding.
By JackieB
#383863
Mavi Gogun wrote:
JackieB wrote:Everyone in the USA has health coverage because we can't be flatly denied treatment by a hospital, at least not legally, but we don't all have insurance.
Tell that to anyone one dying of cancer, or suffering from condition "X"- they are far from "covered". Ya, if you come in bleeding, attempts will be made to stop it- beyond that, more or less nothing.
Of course. I don't mean to diminish the plight of anyone without adequate insurance. I'm strongly in favor of single payer and have been since the early 1980s. Thanks for correcting me.
User avatar
By jjcote
#383865
Here's an interesting idea: if anyone out there is flying without insurance or the financial resources to deal with an (all too common) catastrophe, planning* to appeal to GoFundMe if things go haywire, consider an alternative. Instead of asking for a lot of financial help after the crash, take a proactive approach and start a GoFundMe campaign in advance to raise the more modest amount needed to acquire insurance. Think that will work?

*Of course, I realize that nobody actually plans to do this before heading out to fly. It happens only after the disaster.
User avatar
By DAVE 858
#383911
jjcote wrote:Here's an interesting idea: if anyone out there is flying without insurance or the financial resources to deal with an (all too common) catastrophe, planning* to appeal to GoFundMe if things go haywire, consider an alternative. Instead of asking for a lot of financial help after the crash, take a proactive approach and start a GoFundMe campaign in advance to raise the more modest amount needed to acquire insurance. Think that will work?

*Of course, I realize that nobody actually plans to do this before heading out to fly. It happens only after the disaster.
Or you can study & work hard & get to a place financially where Health Insurance cost is of no concern.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#383912
DAVE 858 wrote: Or you can study & work hard & get to a place financially where Health Insurance cost is of no concern.
Oh really... tell me more? I've completed your two step procedure, but can't seem to find the financial place you speak of?
User avatar
By AlaskanNewb
#383913
AIRTHUG wrote:Maybe everyone here should go flying.

Less judging of other's choices against your own moral yardstick. More living by the standards you are free to set for yourself, and being satisfied that you do so. Let others enjoy that same freedom :thumbsup:

We are all crazy kite jumping peoples- this divisive negativity does not help anyone (including you, in the big picture)
Thank you whoever you are.

A sane voice.
User avatar
By Nigel Hewitt
#383918
AIRTHUG wrote:
DAVE 858 wrote: Or you can study & work hard & get to a place financially where Health Insurance cost is of no concern.
Oh really... tell me more? I've completed your two step procedure, but can't seem to find the financial place you speak of?
Europe HTH.

OK this whole thread rather frightens me. I now realise that you guys have a whole zone of problems that we don't. I had known that treatment for long term illnesses could be a problem to you but I had never put two and two together to realise how much it could effect you for accidents and injuries. How common is 'not insured'?
User avatar
By franklingrx
#383929
Not being able to afford reasonable health/accident insurance, at least catastrophic, is BS. it's all about choices.

2 anecdotes from my life:

Despite my being annoyed with some of my brother's questionable life decisions, I admire him for one thing in particular. No matter what his financial position, the second thing he paid for every month after food and before clothing, shelter, transportation, luxuries of any kind, was his health care premium. The lowest point for him was a few years back, when he was working whatever odd job he could find for cash, riding a junk bicycle, or a free bus to work, he was paying $650/ month for his insurance, on $1000/month income, living in a stable in exchange for shoveling stalls. (He's on his feet now, doing well)

Before I finally hit medicare age, my premium was up to $850/month. From the day I was a poor college student, I have always been self employed, so there was no relief, but despite months on end, and once a year of no income, I have paid every monthly premium since 1966. Decades without a vacation, and usually 15 years between new cars.

Contrast this with the story of too many acquaintances and friends of mine, who proudly say they don't pay for health insurance because "they can't afford it and pay their mortgage too", as they drive off to the airport in their new SUV for a trip to Italy.
User avatar
By thermaleo
#383943
Well just about every developed country except for the USA manages to ensure complete health care for everyone, with generally better results and for less than half the cost that we pay. Every $1 you spend on health insurance is a dollar which you can't spend on something else, (like a new T2!), which is huge drain on the economy overall. And why your employer should be responsible for your health care has always baffled me.

So get out and campaign and vote for Bernie Sanders, because he is the only candidate for President who will try to get a real healthcare system in this country that serves everyone. Sure it probably won't happen under his presidency given the intransigent and corrupt opposition, but he is the only candidate who will have the moral authority to hold Congress's feet to the fire and show them up for the lying corrupt sleazeballs they all are. That's BOTH parties.

And somewhere down the road maybe, just maybe, things will change....

Or you can vote for more of the same.

Leo Jones

Sorry for the politicized post.
By old newbie
#383945
thermaleo wrote:Well just about every developed country except for the USA manages to ensure complete health care for everyone, with generally better results and for less than half the cost that we pay. Every $1 you spend on health insurance is a dollar which you can't spend on something else, (like a new T2!), which is huge drain on the economy overall. And why your employer should be responsible for your health care has always baffled me.

So get out and campaign and vote for Bernie Sanders, because he is the only candidate for President who will try to get a real healthcare system in this country that serves everyone. Sure it probably won't happen under his presidency given the intransigent and corrupt opposition, but he is the only candidate who will have the moral authority to hold Congress's feet to the fire and show them up for the lying corrupt sleazeballs they all are. That's BOTH parties.

And somewhere down the road maybe, just maybe, things will change....

Or you can vote for more of the same.

Leo Jones

Sorry for the politicized post.
Wow, from California yet still hopeful the politicians can and will make it better. It seems all about growing federal and state governments and not about benefits to the tax payer. Look at the growth in high paying federal and state jobs over the last decade, eventually so many will be working or receiving benefits from the feds that the chance of stopping this monster is zero. While Bernie may well be the best choice of who's left we need to go much further to save this country and need senators like Rand Paul who are not addicted to spending.

Steve
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#383957
old newbie wrote:Look at the growth in high paying federal and state jobs over the last decade - *snip*
Where can I find the database you reference? You know- the one showing Federal and State job growth and pay inflation since 2005? Which State had the highest rate? Which the lowest? Facts, please.
By darkcloud
#383969
Mavi Gogun wrote:
old newbie wrote:Look at the growth in high paying federal and state jobs over the last decade - *snip*
Where can I find the database you reference? You know- the one showing Federal and State job growth and pay inflation since 2005? Which State had the highest rate? Which the lowest? Facts, please.
Last decade? Probably not. Last several decades? Absolutely. Lifetime pensions and medical simply don't exist in much of the private sector. Many in the private sector resent their taxes being used to fund such generous benefits for others while also being responsible for planning for their own retirements.
User avatar
By HGXC
#383971
Any action sport involves a cost to participate. In Hang Gliding you need equipment instruction, a vehicle that is robust enough to carry gliders and insurance to cover your risk.

That is what it takes and if you can't assemble that then you shouldn't be participating. Look at skiing.....lift ticket prices are thru the roof...equipment costs are raising and i knew of many who simply can't afford it anymore. Taking a family to a ski area for just a day trip is outrageous.

But in Hang Gliding we have a very strange combination of people and circumstances. We have an ironic situation of a person who wishes to fly gliders made of sailcloth and aluminum at high altitudes and for long distances ... a situation requiring self reliance and confidence and courage yet many of these same persons can't get it together to establish the minimum basics for living which is provide food, shelter and some kind of healthcare coverage.

I don't believe most of these people can't do it....if you can be brave and determined enough to acquire the skills and ability to fly a glider you can get qualified to earn a reasonable living and include those basics. I think that many of these uninsured pilots would simply rather buy a new glider then do the right thing.

I have been part of flying communities for over 42 years and I have seen the patterns. I know many who fly with no insurance and its by choice not a lack of ability or bad luck.

Dennis
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#383972
darkcloud wrote:Last decade? Probably not. Last several decades? Absolutely.
The claim was that there is a current trend that only the Libertarian champion can end. Frankly, given our political climate of fantastic proclamations, assurances of sentiment aren't enough.
darkcloud wrote:Lifetime pensions and medical simply don't exist in much of the private sector.
Not anymore, anyway- pensions and medical funds, paid into with the sweat of labor, have largely been gutted over the last 40 years. The Libertarian ethos does not provide for rectifying that concerted effort. By no stretch of the imagination would labor rights be promoted more under Rand Paul than Bernie Sanders. I reckon either would be keenly interested in rolling back institutionalized Congressional graft.
darkcloud wrote:Many in the private sector resent their taxes being used to fund such generous benefits for others while also being responsible for planning for their own retirements.
Closer to the truth would be "more or less everybody in the private sector".

Recall the context this was brought up: Steve dismissed attempts to make health care and education normal investments- along the lines of many European nations -was nothing more than a conspiracy to grow government without returning benefit; that is nothing more than dogmatic bullshit. For sure we can rely on corruption- it's up to us to plan for it. "Gee, I'd like to fund cancer research- but you know some university is just going to steal funding." That reasoning gets us no place good.
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#383978
Dennis wrote:I don't believe most of these people can't do it....if you can be brave and determined enough to acquire the skills and ability to fly a glider you can get qualified to earn a reasonable living and include those basics. I think that many of these uninsured pilots would simply rather buy a new glider then do the right thing.
Ah, yes- the poor-are-poor-because-they-choose-to-be myth... only exchanging the 'Cadillac in the yard' for "new glider". Such a simple, comforting universe to live in. In the real US of A, there are many, many brave, determined, hardworking people struggling just for food and shelter- let alone health care or insurance. This is bigger than just disposition.

If we want to talk about "most of these people", I reckon we'd find more uninsured pilots flying ragged-out hand-me-downs, not new kites- but I've got no data to back that up... it just makes more sense to me.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#383980
In all reality, most health insurance in the US is a joke when anything major is concerned. Consider the following 2 scenarios...

Pilot Bob crashes and injures himself. He has insurance
He goes into the hospital for a month and comes out having accrued $200,000 in medical bills. His insurance pays 80% of this leaving him responsible for $40,000. In reality, the insurance probably has that bill negotiated down to $80,000, so they really only paid $40,000, but, Bob is still responsible for 20% the list price. Bob arranges to make monthly payments to the hospital for many years.

Pilot Fred crashes and injures himself. He has no insurance.
He goes into the hospital for a month and comes out having accrued $200,000 in medical bills. Fred calls up the hospital and says...
"I cannot pay $200,000. I can pay $40,000 in payments over a number of years. If you will accept the arrangement as payment-in-full for your services, then great. If not, then I will have to declare bankruptcy.
Rather then loose most, if not all, of the $200,000 bill, the hospital is very likely to accept the $40,000 offer.

The real problem is how did medical services get sooo expensive? Why would Bob or Fred have $200,000 in medical bills for services which should have cost a small fraction of that? The answer is 2 fold...

1. Medical malpractice insurance is very expensive because lawyers are very expensive and the legal process to determine liability is unpredictable. If we had a simple legal system, it would be less risky and less expensive to insure doctors.

2. Nobody will tell a patient what anything costs. I was uninsured for a time several years ago. At the time, I needed a procedure done. I asked what the procedure would cost, and was given a figure. When I got the bill, it was 3 times the figure I was quoted. When I asked about this, I was told "Oh, those are your lab fees. Everyone has to pay those" If the problem was some un-expected complication, I would have understood, but as it was, I did not pay their "lab fees". Yes, it hurt my credit for a while, but I WILL NOT pay what I do not owe, and if I didn't agree to pay it, then I don't owe it.
Anyway, IF you could find out what things cost, then you could comparison shop, and that would drive down prices.
User avatar
By HGXC
#383981
"Ah, yes- the poor-are-poor-because-they-choose-to-be myth..."

Don't ever put words in my mouth....I said people who fly hang gliders...those people demonstrate knowledge and quick decisions making skills, they are smart enough to understand aviation and weather. Lets take a random selection of 10 pilots that are flying today without insurance and examine them. Test their IQ, there ability to learn, their educational and family background. You will find people with more ability and opportunity and choices then the average American. Yet they don't fully provide for themselves.....then ask why...what choices for careers did they make as they approached high school graduation? What responsibility did they accept as they entered the world.

I have many in mind and clearly they choose gilder over the basics. and many have better gliders then those who have careers and families that require planned purchases.

Its not the role of government to take care of you year in year in year out...yes we all need a safety net but that is a temporary assist not permanent. Many of these pilots have been this way for years......you are telling me that in all these years they couldn't get their act together? I say after all those years it was a choice...or a series of choices and its irresponsible.

Dennis
User avatar
By HGXC
#383982
RobertKesselring wrote:In all reality, most health insurance in the US is a joke when anything major is concerned. Consider the following 2 scenarios...

Pilot Bob crashes and injures himself. He has insurance
He goes into the hospital for a month and comes out having accrued $200,000 in medical bills. His insurance pays 80% of this leaving him responsible for $40,000. In reality, the insurance probably has that bill negotiated down to $80,000, so they really only paid $40,000, but, Bob is still responsible for 20% the list price. Bob arranges to make monthly payments to the hospital for many years.

Pilot Fred crashes and injures himself. He has no insurance.
He goes into the hospital for a month and comes out having accrued $200,000 in medical bills. Fred calls up the hospital and says...
"I cannot pay $200,000. I can pay $40,000 in payments over a number of years. If you will accept the arrangement as payment-in-full for your services, then great. If not, then I will have to declare bankruptcy.
Rather then loose most, if not all, of the $200,000 bill, the hospital is very likely to accept the $40,000 offer.

The real problem is how did medical services get sooo expensive? Why would Bob or Fred have $200,000 in medical bills for services which should have cost a small fraction of that? The answer is 2 fold...

1. Medical malpractice insurance is very expensive because lawyers are very expensive and the legal process to determine liability is unpredictable. If we had a simple legal system, it would be less risky and less expensive to insure doctors.

2. Nobody will tell a patient what anything costs. I was uninsured for a time several years ago. At the time, I needed a procedure done. I asked what the procedure would cost, and was given a figure. When I got the bill, it was 3 times the figure I was quoted. When I asked about this, I was told "Oh, those are your lab fees. Everyone has to pay those" If the problem was some un-expected complication, I would have understood, but as it was, I did not pay their "lab fees". Yes, it hurt my credit for a while, but I WILL NOT pay what I do not owe, and if I didn't agree to pay it, then I don't owe it.
Anyway, IF you could find out what things cost, then you could comparison shop, and that would drive down prices.

I have had medical expenses that exceeded that and that was not my experience. If you truly want medical costs to get reasonable then you need to make patients consumers and let the free market drive down those prices via competition. Health savings accounts and major med coverage needs to be controlled by the consumer. I have already seen plans for iphone apps that take a program like around me ...and use it to determine where you can shop for medical procedures and imagining services. By have layers between the consumer and the provider we just screw up any chance to truly challenge rising prices.

Dennis
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#383984
Dennis wrote:If you truly want medical costs to get reasonable then you need to make patients consumers and let the free market drive down those prices via competition.
This dogmatic proscription does not play out in the real world- many other countries feature lower medical costs with much more market control. We've ran the capitalist experiment- without regulation, it is like a speeding car with no driver. Unregulated markets are no panacea. Markets regulated to bestow advantage to one business or another are no better- that's just more capitalism gone wrong.

We pin-ball around from term to term, with no cohesive policy aside from the best legislation the market can buy- and that's no place from which to judge the efficacy of regulation, or use such failures to claim that laissez faire capitalism is the answer for what ails us. For an enduring example of the LFC legacy, check out how many of our streams, rivers, and lakes are drinkable... or swimmable... or still support aquatic life...
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#383987
Mavi Gogun wrote:
Dennis wrote:If you truly want medical costs to get reasonable then you need to make patients consumers and let the free market drive down those prices via competition.
.... We've ran the capitalist experiment- without regulation, it is like a speeding car with no driver...
When?
I can't remember anything except an over-regulated market during my life time. Granted, I'm only 36, but I've not yet seen a truly capitalist medical system in the US. Such a system would have regulations to ensure that doctors and patients do not cheat each other (such regulations do not currently exist) and no more (lots of unnecessary regulations do exist).

Lets try a system that keeps people honest, but doesn't impose any other requirements or prohibitions. That's what capitalism is, and I've been seeing less and less of it over the years. Never have seen it in a medical context.
Mavi Gogun wrote:it is like a speeding car with no driver....
A better analogy would be a bus, since we're all in it together. The problem with putting a driver in the bus is that the driver is then in a position of power. Power corrupts. Sooner or later that bus will wind up at Auschwitz.

I'd prefer all those passengers to get off the metaphorical bus, and assume control of their own cars. Some may crash and burn, and we have to let them. Some may even crash into me, or you, or innocent bystanders, we should have laws that hold those people responsible for the harm they cause. Some will reach their destinations safely. Good for them.

In my mind, taking the chance that free people will do something I don't like is preferable to loosing my own freedoms.

I agree pure capitalism will run-amok because it assumes that most people have intelligence and integrity, and that isn't a valid assumption.

Pure socialism condemns us all to the same level of misery.

What we need is a mix that gives us the best of both. What we have is a mix that gives us the worst of both.
Last edited by RobertKesselring on Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.