N.C. Man Allegedly Robs Bank of $1 to Get Health Care in Jail

[TotallyOz]

A man in North Carolina robbed a bank in order to get medical coverage. He handed the teller a note asking for 1.00 US. He then sat on a sofa waiting for the police to arrive.

Sad that it takes something so drastic for someone to get the medical help they need. Also sad the prisoners have better coverage than the majority of Americans. Also sad that while the US only has 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nc-man-allegedly-robs-bank-health-care-jail/story?id=13887040

[TampaYankee]

A man in North Carolina robbed a bank in order to get medical coverage. He handed the teller a note asking for 1.00 US. He then sat on a sofa waiting for the police to arrive.

Sad that it takes something so drastic for someone to get the medical help they need. Also sad the prisoners have better coverage than the majority of Americans. Also sad that while the US only has 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nc-man-allegedly-robs-bank-health-care-jail/story?id=13887040

This country is so fucked up when it comes to heath care. Between the special interests vested in the present system and the political agendas that seek to use health care to achieve other goals, we are going to end up worse than many many third world nations. We are already there. Take a look at Singapore for one.

There are many successes elsewhere that we fail to study closely and try to adapt to American needs because they were not invented here by us or because they gore the ox of some special interest. Or because they solve the problem of universal medical care with selection of private or public plans that permit one to choose their own doctors and hospitals, at half the cost, thus removing it as an issue to push other agendas.

[lookin]

What seems to get lost in the debate is that the cost of for-profit health care is going up even faster than the cost of government-funded health care. While Medicare costs are up 400% since 1969, private insurance costs are up 700%.

It's clear to me anyway that a public option like Medicare needs to be available to anyone who wants it. Not mandated, mind you, merely available as an option.

But the private insurers would scream like stuck pigs. And unfortunately, at present, they're the ones who have figured out how to control the public debate.

We pretend that voters are in charge, but it's the for-profit companies that are more effective at shaping legislation. As the days go by, it seems we're getting farther away from a democracy and closer to some of the oligarchies that our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters have finally had enough of.

[Guest Allessio77]

Why can't we win this argument? Republican Tea Baggers have to pay insurance premiums too or they receive Medicare! Except for those who are so wealthy as not to notice, 90% of Americans are being ripped off by their Insurers.

It is a sad day when we slip so far down the rankings of healthy countries.

BTW, there was some aspect of Obamacare bill that no one noticed, that in 2014 will allow those who retire early and make less than $64k to opt in to Medicare!

[TampaYankee]

What seems to get lost in the debate is that the cost of for-profit health care is going up even faster than the cost of government-funded health care. While Medicare costs are up 400% since 1969, private insurance costs are up 700%.

It's clear to me anyway that a public option like Medicare needs to be available to anyone who wants it. Not mandated, mind you, merely available as an option.

But the private insurers would scream like stuck pigs. And unfortunately, at present, they're the ones who have figured out how to control the public debate.

We pretend that voters are in charge, but it's the for-profit companies that are more effective at shaping legislation. As the days go by, it seems we're getting farther away from a democracy and closer to some of the oligarchies that our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters have finally had enough of.

Amen, Amen, Amen...

[TampaYankee]

Why can't we win this argument?

Lookin already answered that question.

We pretend that voters are in charge, but it's the for-profit companies that are more effective at shaping legislation. As the days go by, it seems we're getting farther away from a democracy and closer to some of the oligarchies that our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters have finally had enough of.

I'd broaden the context to all of Big Business and Deep Pocket Monied Interests influence on most aspects of government policy.

We will never have a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' as long as we have the nonconstitutional fiction of Corporate Personhood foisted upon us via a backdoor through an opinion of the Supreme Court in a case which had no direct interest in the concept. That and the ill-conceived opinion that money = free speech without 'any' restriction. That puts the monied interests in the driver seat -- plain and simple. Both of those instutionalized concepts make sure we get the best government that money can buy.

[BigK]

Isn't it a little naive to put all the blame on the Insurance Companies? What about ever increasing medical care costs from the providers to the medical equipment manufacturers? What about frivolous litigation (some of the litigation surly is frivolous) which necessitates some of those increasing medical care costs? From where I sit there's plenty of blame to go around.

I really have no idea what the answer is. But adding a new government bureaucracy seems to me to be adding a layer of complexity to an already overly complex problem.

Also I really don't like being lied to like I was by the Obama Administration. There's no way that their plan will result in reduced per capita medical costs as they claim in their projections. Also the bandied about promise that we will all be able to keep our current coverage doesn't stand up to the reality that as businesses are penalized for keeping private coverage most will eventually give up and go with the government coverage.

Back to the insurance companies, I trust their need to compete for more customers to help manage costs then a no competition bureaucracy (and the government pensions that go with that increased bureaucracy).

In the final analysis I don't trust Our Government manage my health care dollars, especially given that they are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. I vote for sticking with the free enterprise system that built this country.

[lookin]

You won't catch me defending Obamacare. Once the public option dropped out of the plan, I lost interest.

But, as Allessio77 pointed out, there are some increased opportunities for opting in to Medicare. And perhaps that's the best we can hope for at this point.

While some may trust the private insurers to manage their health care, I personally trust them to figure out how to send more dollars to their bottom line.

All I ask is that folks have a choice. If they want a private plan, fine. If they want a public plan, fine.

As an advocate for a public plan, I don't have any problem with someone choosing a private plan. On the other hand, the private insurance lobby sure seems to want to bury the public plan option.

What have they got against a little free choice?

[TampaYankee]

I vote for sticking with the free enterprise system that built this country.

I can't wait to see the free enterprise take over our military, highways, disease control, food and drug inspection, flood control, rural power grid, prisons, police, schools, veterans hospitals, voter registration -- everything operated on a pay as you go basis with a good profit the bottom line.

Who will build roads and power lines to small communities that are not profitable? The same for clinics and hospitals? Toll roads will become omnipresent, even to your local grocery store or cleaners. Will business create a military based on strategic and tactical needs or on profit margin? The Military Industrial Complex has a great track record for bringing weapons systems online within budget and schedule. Let's let them do it all including troop management and logistics given their outstanding record.

We will allocate our police and schools on the profit bottom line rather than the crime stats in the community. Same for fire protection. When the costs cut into the profit margin we let the buildings burn? If you have a fire then pray it happens in the first half of the fiscal year.

I could go and on. Many things are best accomplished with free enterprise. Some things are not.

[BigK]

I can't wait to see the free enterprise take over our military, highways, disease control, food and drug inspection, flood control, rural power grid, prisons, police, schools, veterans hospitals, voter registration -- everything operated on a pay as you go basis with a good profit the bottom line.

Who will build roads and power lines to small communities that are not profitable? The same for clinics and hospitals? Toll roads will become omnipresent, even to your local grocery store or cleaners. Will business create a military based on strategic and tactical needs or on profit margin? The Military Industrial Complex has a great track record for bringing weapons systems online within budget and schedule. Let's let them do it all including troop management and logistics given their outstanding record.

We will allocate our police and schools on the profit bottom line rather than the crime stats in the community. Same for fire protection. When the costs cut into the profit margin we let the buildings burn? If you have a fire then pray it happens in the first half of the fiscal year.

I could go and on. Many things are best accomplished with free enterprise. Some things are not.

Nice Obfuscation.

[TampaYankee]

Nice Obfuscation.

Just pointing out that free enterprise is not the end all, be all for providing essential services to the people. In some instances the concept of profits is inconsistent with providing some services.

The free market is almost always better at providing products and nonessential services. It is certainly not clear cut that holds for essential services as the above list of examples points out. It is not even clear for some essential products as certain important but mostly obsolete products -- overtaken by newer products using newer technologies -- which may be important to certain critical systems still in operation. Vacuum tubes might be one example. There are others.

So we need a combination of market types to serve the nation. That's my point, not obfuscation. Anyone that has faith to put all the eggs in either basket is more about ideology than in effective product and services delivery, IMO.

[BigK]

Just pointing out that free enterprise is not the end all, be all for providing essential services to the people. In some instances the concept of profits is inconsistent with providing some services.

The free market is almost always better at providing products and nonessential services. It is certainly not clear cut that holds for essential services as the above list of examples points out. It is not even clear for some essential products as certain important but mostly obsolete products are overtaken by newer products using newer technologies but which may be important to certain crtical systems still in operation. Vacuum tubes might be one example. There are others.

So we need a combination of market types to serve the nation. That's my point, not obfuscation. Anyone that has faith to put all the eggs in either basket is more about ideology than in effective product and services delivery, IMO.

I never said that free enterprise is the answer for everything. That's what the obfuscation in your reply was about. Me thinks thou dost protest too much about ideology.

[TampaYankee]

Just pointing out that free enterprise is not the end all, be all for providing essential services to the people. In some instances the concept of profits is inconsistent with providing some services.

The free market is almost always better at providing products and nonessential services. It is certainly not clear cut that holds for essential services as the above list of examples points out. It is not even clear for some essential products as certain important but mostly obsolete products are overtaken by newer products using newer technologies but which may be important to certain crtical systems still in operation. Vacuum tubes might be one example. There are others.

A perfect example of where the free market has failed in providing a reaonsble, affordable widely needed 'essential product' is 'burial caskets'. The free market supports horrendously priced caskets, even at the most basic level, even though funeral homes (distributors) are manifest-and-many in our population centers. The suppliers are few, I guess, and they call the tune -- the same tune apparently. The free market has NOT caused a glut in suppliers, even with the high profit margins, that would reduce prices.

This applies to Heath Insurance in some ways too. There are not that many Insurance companies that compete against each other in a given region/area. When there are a half-dozen or so, it is not so much a free market system as it is a 'leveraged' market system. That is clear from the great disparity between individual and group policy rates.

If you have clout then you get better prices, if not well... that's tough. That is not strictly free market. That is how big employers get better rates and bigger insurance companies get better deals from hospitals and doctors. My employer didn't play off one provider against another and choose a winner. They sought proposals from the local providers then offered three or four plans to the employees. (As health care costs increased in recent years they dropped back to two plans.)

The individual has NO clout. They pay full window list price even though, generally, they are less better situated to pay -- even the leveraged prices. Without leverage they might as well be negotiating for a burial casket.

[lookin]

So true, TY. Some may consider private health insurance to be a 'free market', but it's as far from a rational competitive market as any I can think of.

The first year I had Medicare, I added one of the supplemental 'Advantage' plans offered by a private insurer. They don't add much to standard Medicare coverage, but the government pays a subsidy to the private insurer to keep them in the tent. The first year, the private insurer made their money on the federal subsidy. The second year, they decided I should kick in an additional thousand dollars. And the third year, after the public outcry about price gouging, my premium was back to zero. They gave the plan a slightly different name each year, but it was pretty much the same coverage.

The folks I really feel sorry for are those who can't afford any coverage at all, and there are tens of millions of them. A hospital test that an insurer (including Medicare) might pay $150 - $250 for might cost an uninsured patient the 'full retail' price of $2500. The hospital will almost never negotiate either. Even though the patient might be able to come up with $250, or even $500, the hospital will hound them for the full $2500. When the patient is eventually forced into bankruptcy, the hospital will move the $2500 into the 'bad debt' column, where it will be used to offset profits and justify higher rates for everybody else. Feh!

The only thing positive that will come out of these horror stories, in my opinion, is the eventual emergence of a single-payer system, or systems, that everyone will have access to. Sadly, I believe the stories will continue to get worse and worse until the light bulb finally goes on and we catch up with all those countries that have already figured it out.

For those who think the government does a worse job of managing health care than the private insurers, I invite them to try getting my insurance company on the phone. They can try comparing cost efficiencies while they're waiting.