Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:the notion you'd rather trust a profit driven insurance firm over the state to provide your medical care is boggling.

I feel exactly the opposite. The idea of trusing a 'free' medical system is completely boggling to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

I agree. I would rather trust an insurance company that manages to pay their workers, run a professional business, and turn a profit rather than a government which can't reach simple decisions in any expedient fashion.

I don't want people to get the wrong idea though. I'm not out to bash anyone personally. This is a contentious issue though. People have some strong opinions on it. I would personally like to see my government reach some kind of ethical, balanced decision through reasoned discourse and compromise.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:the notion you'd rather trust a profit driven insurance firm over the state to provide your medical care is boggling.

I feel exactly the opposite. The idea of trusing a 'free' medical system is completely boggling to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Its not a cultural thing Bic, cos Im British and I agree with you. MGS is a screaming socialist and this is obviously playing havock with his common sense, I mean, isnt it pretty much a given fact that in the UK if you rock up to the doctors and he says "Oh that mole might be nasty, best get it lopped off" you will have to wait for 6 weeks, but if you are willing to pay an go private it can happen tomorrow? How then (MGS) do you reconcile that with "people trust the NHS more" if people regularly pay to go private?

I only don't pay for BUPA because im a stubborn bastard, and I figure if im forced to pay for the NHS, then Im using the fether if I get sick.

If I could get a 10% tax break, or pay 20% less national insurance if I paid for private, then I absolutely would take out private health insurance, BUPA has an excellent reputation.

If I go to the NHS waiting room, I'm behind illegal immigrants and hypochondriac health anxiety mother fethers and whatever other dregs of society are in the line in front of me. I find it offensive.

If I have paid into the system for 30 years, why the feth don't I get precedence over some fething Iraqi that's here illegally? Or some Somalian that lives in a nicer house than me but hasn't paid any taxes before? Or some white trash fething chav that's in with liver problems because he spends all his lovely dole money on special brew every week?

I have all sorts of issues with the NHS, Im just aware that its marginally better than the US system.

It doesnt mean I cant agree with what alot of guys like biccat say.

Jimsolo wrote:
Wait, so the state 'provided your health care?' So, a government employee came into your hospital room and diagnosed you? Some federal paper pusher comes in to take care of your loved ones? Or was it a doctor who you saw?

I was unaware that doctors could not be government employees. Perhaps I should inform the many esteemed physicians at the VA that they are breaking the rules.

Jimsolo wrote:
If my mechanic couldn't find out what was wrong with my car, I wouldn't be expected to pay him, but the doctor still wants his money.

What mechanic do you go to that doesn't charge for labor?

Jimsolo wrote:
Insurance companies aren't 'designed not to pay,' that's just the sour-grapes cry of the lazy schlub who didn't bother to read his policy. If you get into business, you better damn well understand what you're getting into. The same applies to any kind of contract, be it a lease agreement, a mortgage, or getting insurance.

It is administratively cheaper for policies to be comprehensive. It is much easier, from a bureaucratic perspective, to simply say "If something bad happens, we will cover you financially." and not "If something bad happens, we will cover you financially, unless it is a flood, or you are determined to be at fault." Exclusions such as these exist either because the insurance company does not want to pay for those particular events, or because it wants exclusions to exist so that it has legal recourse to escape a certain number of payments. It seems unlikely that these exclusions exist in order to do anything other than prevent payment, as they are themselves costly.

Now, does that mean people should not be required to read the insurance agreement? No, of course not. But it does mean that there is a clear incentive for insurance companies to resist payment, and that the contracts involved are designed to do so.

Jimsolo wrote:
Is the system here in America flawed? Yes. Hell yes. But you can't blame the insurance companies for that. It's silly. Blame the doctors, the hospitals, and the pharmaceutical companies first. Then we can look at the insurance companies.

Spoken like a true lobbyist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:
I agree. I would rather trust an insurance company that manages to pay their workers, run a professional business, and turn a profit rather than a government which can't reach simple decisions in any expedient fashion.

Well there's your problem, you're looking at the government like a monolith.

I blame the terrible state of American civics education.

Jimsolo wrote:
I don't want people to get the wrong idea though. I'm not out to bash anyone personally. This is a contentious issue though. People have some strong opinions on it. I would personally like to see my government reach some kind of ethical, balanced decision through reasoned discourse and compromise.

I would like them to refrain from protecting the rights of all people who disagree with me, but it isn't going to happen. In fact, my desire is more likely to be fulfilled than yours, given the history of government. Though I suppose I could also contend that government debate, behind closed doors, is far more civilized than the one which exists outside them; though I'm not sure that it is anymore.

It is strange to me that so many people expect from the government what is never accomplished by individuals in matters that are important to them.

I'd be interested in seeing actual free market health care.

Of course, that means:
1) no barriers to competition
2) the end the AMA's monopoly on accrediting doctors
3) no more pharmaceutical patents
4) the complete end of medicare, medicaid, and VA benefits

In other words, it's not really likely. What's left is the discussion on where to draw the line between public and private control.

It's not like government run endeavors are universally white elephants. A lot of people seem to trust public education. Or public road infrastructure. And public military and law enforcment. And EMS/Fire.

But public health care would suddenly be a catastrophe?

If it's simply "I'd rather have the indigent die and the working/middle class go bankrupt when ill than pay more taxes," that's not something I agree with but I guess I can see where it comes from. But this idea that somehow our health care system would become a kafka-esque nightmare if nationalized seems... unlikely.

To OP, why did you have to take out a loan to pay the balance as opposed to setting up a payment plan with the hospital? It dont know if its too late to cancel that loan or if you are still waiting on the check but generally in my experience that huge bill you get from your the hospital after the insurance pays its amount can be repaid directly to the hospital in installments without interest. This is what we did with what was left of the out of pocket for both our children.

sennacherib wrote:
Feedback is appreciated and anyone with other hobby ideas feel free to message them to me or suggest them here. Thanks.

I'm sorry for your troubles.

Selling them unassembled was probably the best return on investment for you, in the long run. Sucks that you had to do it.

That's 1000 of the 4500 you owe, leaving you $3500, correct?

Over the next 18 months, you'll need to pay off $200 per month to fill the $3500. If you got a Sat/Sun job at $5.00 for 8 hours each day, you'd have about $200 after taxes, in addition to your current part-time job. Or, adding 16 hours per week to your current job would do it. That would require a significant lifestyle change for you (I'm assuming), but would help get you through this.

The other ideas of student loans (generally a pretty low intererst rate) or borrowing some from the folks (if possible), can also get you through it. You can always call the Hospitial collections and tell them you're a full time student and see if they will extend the interest fee to 24 or 30 months. All they can do is say no.

Best of luck, man.

dogma wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:
Is the system here in America flawed? Yes. Hell yes. But you can't blame the insurance companies for that. It's silly. Blame the doctors, the hospitals, and the pharmaceutical companies first. Then we can look at the insurance companies.

Spoken like a true lobbyist.

Most doctors don't even make that much money. The average income for a family doctor is something like $170,000. Good money, but there are almost certainly pharma sales reps coming into their offices making that much or more. And have you seen the cost of malpractice insurance? Cripes. And God forbid that you're a OB/GYN and have to pay THOSE rates.

Our system is indeed terminally fethed up, but I dunno how you point to the doctors first and foremost. Like with the housing bubble, everyone shares the blame.

Jimsolo wrote:
I agree. I would rather trust an insurance company that manages to pay their workers, run a professional business, and turn a profit rather than a government which can't reach simple decisions in any expedient fashion.

Well there's your problem, you're looking at the government like a monolith.

I blame the terrible state of American civics education.

That may be part of the problem. The US citizenry has also always had its antigovernment streak (of sorts), and that's obviously seen an upswell in recent years.

But IMO, just plain old fear of change is a big factor. The current system is very much the devil you know for most citizens. That's why the public endlessly carps about the system, but then does a 180 once faced with real change to said system (followed by carping again after change fails to occur). It's like shooting fish in a barrel for the lobbying groups that fight against national health insurance.

gorgon wrote:
Most doctors don't even make that much money. The average income for a family doctor is something like $170,000. Good money, but there are almost certainly pharma sales reps coming into their offices making that much or more. And have you seen the cost of malpractice insurance? Cripes. And God forbid that you're a OB/GYN and have to pay THOSE rates.

Our system is indeed terminally fethed up, but I dunno how you point to the doctors first and foremost. Like with the housing bubble, everyone shares the blame.

Quite honestly, doctors get screwed pretty hard. They make good money, but not considering their expenses; unless they're specialists. The return on professional degrees is starting to go the way of BAs and BSs, which says bad things about our education system, and medical system.

gorgon wrote:
That may be part of the problem. The US citizenry has also always had its antigovernment streak (of sorts), and that's obviously seen an upswell in recent years.

But IMO, just plain old fear of change is a big factor. The current system is very much the devil you know for most citizens. That's why the public endlessly carps about the system, but then does a 180 once faced with real change to said system (followed by carping again after change fails to occur). It's like shooting fish in a barrel for the lobbying groups that fight against national health insurance.

That's certainly true. It also helps that the people most significant to politics, the relatively well-off, do not suffer under the current system. My uncle, for example, harps on the medical system all the time (he works in insurance as well, so there is bonus damage) but doesn't even have a co-pay for office visits.

You know, I didn't mean to hack anyone off. I just have this tendency to respond antagonistically to any strongly worded opinion. I apologize. I didn't add anything to the discussion, so you guys go on ahead without me.

OP here.. I am enjoying the debate so please carry on.

as for the suggestions. I cannot put off my interest beyond 18 months. however i do not accrue any interest during this time period. So as long as i pay off most or all of it in the next year and a half then i wont have to pay the exhorbitant rate. I did check up on WHO i am getting the loan from Get this. Its GE the general electric company that has now apparently stepped out into the medical loan part of buisness. When i told my family this they asked me to make sure so i did. When i go to pay off y loan it shows a picture of a light bulb, the GE logo and a whole bunch of leaves alll shaded pasel green. Yeah its GE after all. Weird huh.

Yeah, GE Finance is the largest, fiscally, component of GE.