AMEN!  I have been saying that for years!  It involves no sacrafice to put your hand in your neighbors pocket and pull out money for the poor.

It's your own fault for living somewhat responsibly!

(Sorry about your situation.)

Ha! It took me months to figure out how to get into the company insurance plan after I was hired in 2004. I have since left that company (I am a IT/dev contractor now) but kept the insurance.

I think it costs about 150 euros a month or so.

The problem with socialized medicine is that it will cost the tax payers way more per year than it would to buy private insurance.  Once the government gets involved, everything becomes very poorly managed and wasteful.

Hell, I'll pay in to Social Security my entire life.  Social Security is expected to be bankrupt about 5 years before I retire.  Great job, government!

I totally believe in putting money where your mouth is.  I give money to people when I feel that they need it, and I donate and/or get involved with causes that I feel strongly about.  However, I don't expect others to be forced to do the same.

It never fails LW that while I am here about to pull my hairs because of the financial problems I have, you always seem to make them look like they can be fixed with a $20 bill.

So far I have to say I have been very lucky not to end up in the streets these past 10 years. Somehow I have always managed to pull thru at the last second when the world seems to be coming to an end for me and my family. I don't know if it's that I am actually really good with finances but that talent does not appear till it's almost too late or I truly have a guardian angel making sure I don't really screw up my families life.

I agree with Brad, I think people should take it upon themselves to help others rather than expect the Gov't to do all the work for them while forcing others to give an amount the Gov't thinks is adequate to problems some may not actually agree on and would probably have never provided help for themselves. After all, people have the right to chose what they think is a worthy cause. I for one am not too happy using our money to help rebuild Iraq while they make record profits on oil.

This may not come out right but at least it's nice to know I am not the only one who thinks doing the right thing doesn't always pay, but we do it anyways. I wish I couold do more to help others directly as oppose to having the Gov't take my money and do God knows what with it. One may think they can use it to help others (such as Universal Healthcare) but one's taxes could easily be used to supply countries like China (which many don't like) with help duing a disaster, or countries like Iraq (which should have been paying for things themselves for a while now).

I could not help but laugh at this comment. I have to wonder if Brad actually expected such a response from anyone at all and would like to know his response to it. A lot of people talk a lot of talk, but very few do a lot of walking. Although your comments seem to already answer this question, I have to ask LW, if the people of this site were to somehow put money together to help you pay your medical bills (or at least part of them), would you take this help and not see it as charity? The reason I ask is because I have seen a lot of comments and articles on this site talking about the help some have given to orthers and how much some care about others here enough to wanna help even with minor things such as the antenna ball you were given or some not-so-minor things such as the PC DrGuy was so kind to send to me when I came back to the states a little over 2 years ago and I was PC-less. Would you accept it? And would the people of JU offer to help? I would, maybe not much but I'll do what I can.

This is so relevant to the research I am doing right now in preparation for my MPA.

The policy makers that manage foundations (administrators) and government programs are the SAME PEOPLE.  They come from the same pool of professionals.

The difference between the two is the constitution.  Gov run things have to filter their decisions through the rights of every individual and not just a select few.  It is like an obstacle course and hard to navigate.

A private foundation is run by the same type people, same training, same code of ethical conduct, but they don't have to worry about the constitution because its not being funded by the people.

We will never get the same sort of efficiency from gov (because of the very constitution we hold dear) and private foundations.  Ever.

When a problem is so significant that it threatens the well being of our nation, then yeah, I think the gov should be involved in its administration, even if it becomes less efficient.

Generally tho, I agree that foundations are a more efficient way to go.  However, they are limited then in scope and usually funding no matter how wealthy the contributors, and a foundation is also more susceptible to economic atmosphere, and frankly whim.  Not something I would want to count on if say my kid can't walk and I need daily assistance with him.

Foundation/not for profit success is hard to "guage" because profit isn't the indicator of success or failure.  If the foundation's goal is to help people bake pies, and they do that consistently then "technically" its a success, no matter how much money it costs, or how FEW people it helps.

The tweaking and success is usually done after its up and running.  Ok, last year we helped 15 people makes pies, our research dept shows there is a whole city of pie makers in Toledo who need help.  So how do we go inter-state?  How do we reach those people?  What are the guidelines?  How can we do it cost effective?

I agree that it makes more sense for private citizens to be responsible for their own generosity.  Less waste, and more personal involvement.  Sometimes it's more of what you can do than what you can spend that helps. 

On the other hand, there may be something that needs attention that an individual does not have the resources to make any impact with, and it may be so under the radar that no group or organization is addressing the need.  I guess that's where starting your own initiative comes in. 

Re:  government health care

I am starting to really hate it.

I have the opportunity to receive maternity care and delivery at a local birth center.  The cost of the care and delivering will be 1/3 or less the cost of a hospital delivery and I would receive timely, personalized attention (which I do not currently receive, as I am almost 20 weeks and have had 1 prenatal appointment).  Government (military) insurance will not approve my using the birth center despite the dramatic savings it would present. 

Even though our health "insurance" is an earned benefit and should be enabling us to make proper health care choices, there is absolutely no freedom or choice allowed or involved.

If I want to be seen at the birth center, I will have to pay completely out of pocket (it's too late to get private insurance for the pregnancy).  Some insurance.

I know that's kind of off topic but I'm glad I got it off my chest. 

Tex, I' don't know if this is right.  Have you called Tricare (not the local office but the 1800/888 number and told them you want to do this?)

I went to see a Dr that wasn't Tricare approved because he was the best and I was tired of military hacks.  Tricare still paid 50%, and I believe if you have a referral to go off base to have the baby then you can pick your own care and are only responsible for what Tricare doesn't pay.

Have you talked to the birth center and asked them if they deal with Tricare at all?

You can't trust the local people to really know Tricare.  I was told when I went off base to have Hunter that "Tricare will pay unless there are complications and you need a c-section."

When I called the regional guy he laughed and said, that was totally wrong.  Now imagine if I made my choices based on the local guys info.  Then he sent me the explanation of benefits (which I always threw in the garbage..I know, I know) so I could read it for myself.

Do you have a EOB?  If not GET ONE..you'll be surprised how much is actually covered.  Or go to their website.

The base here is building a new maternity center and they are pushing EVERYONE through the system, not allowing referrals for off-post, despite the overcrowding, to pay for the new center.

I did try to be seen off-post initially since they approved an off-post family doc and pediatrician, but no such luck on obstetrics.

I have not talked to the birth center yet, I am going to make an appt for a consultation, but my understanding is that it is exceedingly difficult/impossible to get Tricare to approve because of their standards for what is considered a qualified maternity care provider (a midwife owns/provides care at the birth center). 

I think I can go on Tricare Standard and do it that way, and pay out of pocket for what TS doesn't cover, but I will be locked in for a year so I need to find out whether it would be more beneficial to pay out of pocket for the entirety of the care or do TS or just suck it up and stick with what I have.  It's not like we have tons of money just laying around.

I will definitely be doing reading/calling around.  Everyone I've talked to who has done a birth center birth with Tricare has paid out of pocket, but if I qualified for Medicaid, I could use a birth center.  Nice.

Thanks for the info, and I will definitely be exploring my options and asking questions.  I don't think it's right to be so limited in care considering what our family goes through to earn our health care bennies.

Karma,

I respectfully disagree! Here in Canada socialized medicine, overall, means that per capita we pay less for health care through taxes than you would through private channels in the states. This is because, for each province there is one medical system. Whereas in the states you can have a thousand different HMO's in one state with a thousand different billing systems and a thousand different corporate policy systems, as LW so painfully has illustrated with the issues with an out of state healthcare provider. Also, the government is not in it to make a profit. Each and every single HMO must make a profit on your premiums in order to stay in business. The best way to ensure profits stay up is to reduce operating expenses. The best way to reduce operating expenses is to try as hard as possible to no have to pay expensive claims.

The end result of socialized medicine isn't the horror story of lies that seem to be routinely fed to folks in the States. Actually, Canadians have a longer lifespan than Americans and lower infant mortality rate.

The downside of a socialized system is that yes, there are indeed waiting lists. Yes, for non-critical procedures you may have to wait awhile. But, the key here is that no one gets left behind. And critical or necessary operations of course take precedence and are taken care of in short order.

But, on the plus side, if I lose my job, or perhaps fall on hard times for whatever number of plausible reasons, I don't have to worry about going bankrupt or taking out a second mortgage to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills.

There's one other aspect to this situation that's been left out.

We've talked about the pros and cons of charity for the poor, or 'regular' folks who simply can't afford to pay for various services.

What about the old?

The truth is that there are a MASSIVE number of elderly folks who require significantly more healthcare and attention than a regular joe who needs a single operation. These folks require ongoing attention and care, which means a regular ongoing expense for that care.

The truth is if everything were only private charities, there simply wouldn't be enough money JUST to pay for looking after old folks.

Even if they have retirement funds or pensions, quite often it simply isn't enough just to cover basic food and medicine expenses, thanks to inflation since the time they retired. And many of these people, toward the end, have to go to a home which has constant, 24/7 medical care- where an attendant checks in on you, bathes you, feeds and clothes you, moves you in and out of a wheelchair or other such implement, or at least turns you so you don't get bed-sores. I was in one of these homes this past weekend, visiting my grandmother who has dementia and is lucid for about 2 or 3 minutes before re-booting and starting all over again. If you're lucky, she'll remember your name and the fact that you're related. If not she gets quite upset if she doesn't remember you.

I'm not trying to pull on heart strings with a sob story, just trying to illustrate the fact that there are a massive number of elderly out there who simply aren't able to look after themselves, even when they worked hard their entire lives for a retirement or pension fund that simply isn't enough for any number of entirely valid reasons. So, what do we do? Do we turn them out on the streets in the hopes that private charities will look after them, or do we do the compassionate, humane thing and collectively cover the expense of taking care of someone who can't take care of themself?

That is the question!

I have to agree with Artysim.

I also want to note that healthcare is an excellent filter for government help. Nobody goes to the dentist or has major surgery for fun; although I am sure that many, perhaps the vast majority, of those living on social welfare where that is possible, are indeed lazy.

I would recommend a shift away from social welfare to public healthcare.

Which means competition, which means customers, which means value and service at a better price.  I doubt your statement about "cheaper" for the very reason you cite and for the reason that you dont know the total cost of the service since it is built into a bloated government bureaucracy.

I don't know how HMO work, but when the state itself is the largest (or only major) customer for health services, prices go down because the state has monopsony power.

You might be confusing this with a situation where there is only one supplier (rather than only one customer) and many customers (rather than many suppliers). That results in monopoly power and higher prices.

The problem with socialised health care is not cost, but quality. The result of socialiced healthcare is inevitably low-cost healthcare with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with it.

Well, I did a little googling for the cost of our medical health system. It has a mandatory insurance, and each health insurance company has to offer the same minimal coverage in one package so you can compare prices. That minimal package covers all basic health care needs and is determined by the government. For those who want more coverage the insurance companies offer additional packages. Every one has to pay for the basic package of course, but those who can't affort it can apply for subsidies. The basic insurance typically is something like $1500 a year for each adult, kids are free, and I guess that on average people pay something like $500 a year extra for better coverage.

I also looked up the total cost of healthcare for my country (the Netherlands), and for 2005 I found it was $6200 per person. This includes everything and about 20% of it is taken up by the care for the eldery and those with a handicap.

And although I'm not saying that our system is perfect (far from it), I do believe it shows that it is possible to have a decent, affordable socialized healthcare system with probably better service, for probably similar costs than the current US system.

And to go back on topic. Before WWII we didn't have a social system and people were dependent on charity. That gave charity a very bad name around here. It was demeaning for those who needed it, as everyone in your church would know you couldn't take care of yourself and your family. And yes, there was real poverty.

After WWII, with most pensioners deprived of all their savings, the government introduced a basic pension, giving some dignity back to the elderly. After that social welfare was gradually introduced in full, but it is no free lunch. The idea is that those who can work should work, and although far from being perfect, our government is doing a decent job in keeping the social welfare affordable.

And yes, this means that I give a lot less to charity than Brad, but I have more trust in our goverment when it comes to a proper handout of 'charity' than in most charity funds which spend fortunes on fund raising instead of the poor and the needy.

In Saskatawan (a Canadian province) if you want an MRI you have to go on a six month waiting list, or go to the States or Alberta (which has a bit more free enterprise) and pay for it out of pocket.

Which means for the U.S. to have something simular it would come with a 2 trillion dollar price tag. Thats a huge amount of new taxes.