Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To offer some perspective about my views on US healthcare and costs, I am self-employed. My company does not provide for healthcare. I've been responsible for my own health care since graduating from college in 1986. From then until 2013, I bought a family-coverage policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Since 2013, my family has participated in a Christian healthcare sharing program - in our case, it's Samaritan Ministries. There are about four of these in the USA, the oldest of which has been around since the '80s (and that one had some problems back about 25 years ago). Under this plan, we handle our own medical expenses - everything from doctor's visits to medicines to eyecare. But if we run into a major issue, the members of the group cover the cost, less a $300 deductible. We didn't have to use that until March of this year, when my youngest child was hospitalized.

Since we handle our own costs, we negotiate with doctors. When we have an issue, we talk to them. They work with us. They appreciate being paid in cash (avoiding the cumbersome insurance market) and always give us good discounts. A friend of ours was quoted a price of $40,000 for a knee replacement. When he said he'd pay cash, the price dropped to $6,000.

My daughter had a serious (and ongoing, chronic) kidney issue when she was 12 years old in 2005. This made things very difficult for us financially for the rest of her childhood, partly because it's then we bought the business - carrying sizeable debt - two weeks before she got sick. But we've made it.

It's been a struggle for us in some ways but in most ways we're very blessed. We live in a mostly free, extraordinarily wealthy country. I had the freedom to choose what I wanted to do and how I wanted to do it. I made many missteps. As a result, I drive a dented '99 Ford pickup truck that I bought in '99. I'm glad it's still running.

My parents lived through the Depression and my dad served in WWII. He never complained about freedom or health care or costs. He certainly didn't feel oppressed to live in a free country or that the health care system was unfair, draconian, for the 1%. I agree with him. I can't believe the level of belly aching that comes from a population blessed to live (mostly) in a time of peace and plenty.

Yeah, I'm optimistic. I'm glad to be right where I am, no matter what missteps I made and no matter what inefficiencies and issues there are.

That's good that you're optimistic. Optimism is a good thing in most areas of life.

Not so in terms of public health. There is a reason that actions are planned on the basis of a reasonable worst case scenario, rather than the reasonable optimistic scenario.

That's worth keeping in mind.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That's a nice story.

As stated above, there's a considerable proportion of the population who don't have the luxury of having the freedom of choice of what. There is no choice.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Expense is not an issue in the USA. It might be for a very few, especially those who are too far away or are afraid of going for legal reasons, but everybody who gets sick simply goes to the emergency room and gets treated. If you lived here, you'd know that instead of arguing with those of us who live here.

Profile of the Uninsured

So who were the uninsured? They tended to be 19 to 64 years old, male, have less than a high school education and/or have lower incomes. This profile is fairly different from the profile of the overall U.S. population.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thank you for the gratuitous and contemptuous comment, MindMessing. That's your way.

As for your statement, it's a falsehood. I know you're smart. I know you believe it. But it's untrue.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That's a nice story.

As stated above, there's a considerable proportion of the population who don't have the luxury of having the freedom of choice of what. There is no choice.

The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017.38 This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent (Figure 7 and Table B-5).

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm in the uninsured group. I'm in the 19 to 64 year old group. And I know what I'm talking about, as do others that have posted in here and as you acknowledged (but have since forgotten) two or three days back.

Not having insurance doesn't mean not having access to healthcare. Everybody gets treated. Consequently, everybody* know it. So when people get sick and don't have insurance, they go to the nearest emergency room.

*Caveat: there is a small percentage, of course, that don't - perhaps they suffer from homelessness plus mental illness and don't want to go; or perhaps they're undocumented and fear running afoul of the law.

Many people delay or avoid health care due to costs, even when insured.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The data really does have no political viewpoints.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm

Percent of persons who failed to obtain needed medical care due to cost: 4.8%

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The data really does have no political viewpoints.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm

Percent of persons who failed to obtain needed medical care due to cost: 4.8%

I don't see where the cost is concerned, the person or the medical insurance organization or the medical provider.

BTW, the CDC does have a political agenda.

When you keep stating "no political agenda" it makes it sound, at least to me, that there is a political agenda.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The data really does have no political viewpoints.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm

I don't see where the cost is concerned, the person or the medical insurance organization or the medical provider.

BTW, the CDC does have a political agenda.

When you keep stating "no political agenda" it makes it sound, at least to me, that there is a political agenda.

The person.

Curious as to your claim that the CDC has a political agenda, that's news to me, not being from the US. Would you mind expanding on it?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I don't see where the cost is concerned, the person or the medical insurance organization or the medical provider.

BTW, the CDC does have a political agenda.

When you keep stating "no political agenda" it makes it sound, at least to me, that there is a political agenda.

The person.

Curious as to your claim that the CDC has a political agenda, that's news to me, not being from the US. Would you mind expanding on it?

Every governmental entity has a political agenda. More money, larger budgets, more control => more power. The CDC apparently stopped other entities in the United States from developing tests for the Corona virus, that meant that any tests had to come from the CDC. Meaning that the CDC could ask for more money, more employees, and hence, more power.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've talked "relentlessly." That doesn't sound good.

The outbreak in the USA didn't really start the big upward curve until the first of March. From late January until then it was mostly confined to Washington State and a few pockets in California. Little testing was done, but people weren't getting sick nor were there hospitalizations.

China had it for two months before they began to experience exponential growth. Then it took drastic measures that have apparently worked. I am indeed optimistic about the quality of healthcare in the USA. There's no place I'd rather be in a pandemic.

It was growing fast in other parts of the world a week or ten days before it began exponential growth in the US. Europe is currently well ahead of the USA - a week or two. We learned and have taken action fairly quickly now. Maybe not enough, but things are beginning to roll fast now.

I see all kinds of information in numbers and trends. This is a medical problem with quantifiable trends. So it's interesting to search for those trends.

I remain optimistic. This seems to grate against those who are relentlessly pessimistic. It is a subset of that group whose conduct has been questionable in here, ranging from vicious to unthoughtful to contemptuous. Why is there a subset of people who will not tolerate different viewpoints? Why does the expression of contrary views agitate so much? Would yo uprefer that I keep my opinions to myself? Should I surrender them to the wisdom of those who see this otherwise? Is it better that I withdraw from the thread I started among a community I've been part of 18 years? Can we all march in lock-step?

I can start a new thread called "For Those Who are Open-Minded, Optimistic, or Neutral. Beware Those Who Aren't."

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Erik, this is a game forum; not a critical government think-tank. I started this to get input and because I enjoy evaluating information, to the extent possible. I made it clear that "I am an optimist without credentials," though I genuinely believe in what I'm doing and writing. Have I pretended to be something I'm not? Why such rudeness in response?

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It isn't the challenge, it's the way it's done. Personal criticism and contemptuousness is rude.