hospital bills = done

[juldea]

Hooray for good news!

My Free Care application finally went through and was approved, so my hospital bills are now done with.

Although, the fact of this brings up a lot of internal debates that I must settle about the ethics of my actions. Do I believe in such a socialized heath care option? If not, does it further my goals to have used the system even though I disagreed with it? Well, that's bad wording. Of course it furthered my goals; I'm less in debt. But at the cost of what integrity? And, if I do believe in the worth of socialized heath care... well, that brings up a lot of things that I thought I had settled.

Because, you see, Having Things Settled is The Goal. *meaningful look*

Comments

[eustacia42.livejournal.com]

I think it's a lot like public transportation, roads, etc. We *say* we don't like paying taxes, but I sure like having roads to drive on. lol

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yup... and I'd be glad to pay a private company to work on the roads, granted they actually used my money to work on the roads.

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

If you think about it, you're paying for that socialized health care in your taxes. So in reality, you're only using what you've given into the system much like if you paid into private health insurance.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I didn't make enough money in 2003 to pay any taxes; I'm getting them all back. I don't think that total over the past N years I've paid as much as my hospital bills cost.

Hence my feelings of sneakiness.

Re:

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

Well you do pay sales tax and some of that makes it way back to the system. While I don't advocate constant use of the system, the whole point of having it is so you can use it if the need arises.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. And the need arose. So I used it. Heh.

Re:

[goldbug.livejournal.com]

you pay medicare tax. you don't get that refunded no matter how little you make.

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're not in favor of socialized health care, you should be. The first function of a society is to care for its members, and protect those who are less able to protect themselves. Those who can protect themselves don't need society to help them do it.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Heh, I love posts that make me write an immediate response, then see the accurate counter to my response, so write another, counter that, etc etc, until I realize what it is I really have to figure out in this issue:

Not whether or not I should participate in a social program that I may or may not agree with, but whether I should participate in a society which I may or may not agree with.

Re:

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

Um, how exactly will you not participate in our society?

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Move. Or go "off the grid". :P

Re:

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

Is that a Matrix reference? I have a vision of you moving into the sewers of some big city, or maybe moving in with a militia in Wyoming or somewhere. It'd be kind of cool to have a friend of whom I could say, "She's such a hardcore capitalist that she moved underground!"

Even though it really makes no sense, typed out.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

It's actually a Terminator 3 reference, although I suppose it could've been used in other movies. But that's the general sense, yeah. Stop paying taxes and therefore stop using services that taxes pay for (although I realize the impossibility in this) - do something like a militia (although without the violence base). Living underground might be neat, although HELLO VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY! ;)

"She's such a hardcore capitalist that she moved underground!" makes me giggle.

Re:

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

Wait, what's that "therefore" doing in there? Oh, I see, I'm with you, it's the ideal Julia world. I was confused until I read on. Perhaps I should read comments in their entirety before responding, in the future. Maybe I should delete my running commentary. Not likely.

I now have a vision of you living technically underground, but right below the surface, with a glass ceiling. It would have some sort of fancy sliding cover for modesty's sake when necessary, of course, or then again maybe not. Who knows. Maybe it's an underground reverse commune.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Heh. I reply after reading the entire comment, but I find your style more interesting :)

Your reverse-commune idea is very neat. Perhaps instead of a round house I'll have an underground house - or I can combine them and have an underground round house!

[waya3k.livejournal.com]

You have to come to terms with your actions with yourself. I am not going to judge you based on what you did. For myself, if I disagree with the intent of a government based program I will not participate. For example, I could qualify as a Native American and all the minority benefits that come with being a minority. However, I strongly disagree with the racial quota systems that are used in many places. Therefore, I always list myself as caucasian or leave the race unchecked. If we are to truly to live in a color blind society then why do we always try to categorize people by race?

Re:

[gager.livejournal.com]

For some things it does make sense to categorize based on race - especially with regard to health care. Certain racial populations are at much higher risk for cystic fibrosis, diabetes, etc., and knowing this helps to find it early.

And while I agree that it is important to have a color blind society with regard to opportunity, it is important to know the information to 1) discover any existing inequities and 2) to follow patterns.

I support the idea of not listing your race, but not listing it in every case seems to me to be a bad idea because in certain situations it can be helpful to categorize based on race: i.e. sickle cell anemia risk group.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

See, I would also participate in that kind of, well, non-participation, because you get no benefit from putting down your heritage. It's not like they're offering you $1300 to check the Native American box.

[karlean7.livejournal.com]

As a musician, I can honestly say that thinking about the ramifications of socialized health care makes my head hurt.

On the OTHER hand, as a musician, I can honestly say that free ANYTHING is good!

So, *thumbs up*

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Trust Mike to make things very simple ;)

[gager.livejournal.com]

I've thought a lot about health care over the past few months and what I think should be done.

What I've come to is simply that the capitalist system in terms of the insurance system is out of control. With record health care costs, the insurance companies are also making record profits (both in terms of money and percentages). And a lot of the problem is that there are no controls on the insurance market since there is no competition except for higher profits.

However, I don't think socialized health care is somewhere we can go right now. The American populace just isn't ready for it, and I think it would be too chaotic. But regulating the industry internally would be too difficult as well. So if you can't change to a socialized system and you can't regulate internally what can you do?

I've come to the conclusion that what should be done is to make a government run non-profit insurance provider. Any American could enroll, and Medicaid-Medicare would become simply extensions of this non-profit. Coverage would be through 3 simple plans ranging from catastrophic to full coverage. Premiums/Copays/etc. would be determined in the light of what would cover paying individuals with the government picking up the tab for Medicaid individuals.

Why? Because having a non-profit in the health care mix would introduce a form of competition the current health insurance industry does not have. No one would be forced to join as it is simply a non-profit but likewise no one could be denied (although to stave off costs, preexisting conditions might have to take 2 years before coverage). The costs of medicare and medicaid could be reduced since they would just be members of a larger insurance which was negotiating with doctors anyway. And like any insurance, doctors wouldn't have to join - but it's a good idea to have doctors in an area or no one will join.

And finally, it does not do anything to the current infrastructure of the medical community. The current insurance companies would still be there, and they could still compete, but now it would be real competition on a baselined playing field. And I have no doubt that existing companies could easily compete with a non-profit by trimming crazy executive salary and bonuses and the drive for excessive profits at the expense of your enrollees. They could also compete by offering differently tailored plans from the non-profits or even supplementals to government insurance.

But anyway, this is just my dream world. The insurance lobby would never let it through. And considering that it's just something I came up with in a bored dream state while driving the other day, it probably has a lot of holes.

Have fun,
-Lyle

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

This comment to be deleted and replaced later when I'm not at work and have time to read and reply to your comment. :)

[caltren.livejournal.com]

Not much more to add to everyone's comments, except to say:

1. Lyle's idea seems interesting. I'm not sure how many 'holes' it has in it, though. Sure seems to work at least somewhat for the USPS (versus FedEx and UPS, though I hear tell they're in a little bit of dire straits atm because the USPS is subsidized). Doesn't seem to do much for train travel though--seeing as how there's no one else in business for passenger travel anymore. There's no easy answer. Things -are- out of hand though, and something needs to be done soon--and for more than just health care.

2. Feh. You're overanalyzing it. You didn't have the money anyway. You're 'using the system' as it is currently designed to be used. If you don't like the way it's designed, vote for someone who wants to change it. :-) But it's your health we're talking about here. That's worth whatever it takes. But then, I'm a Jew. First law is that you can break any of its laws if it's for your health. Priorities. Heh.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Eh, overanalyzing. I need something to expend mental energies on. ;)

And yes, I do vote for those who support the policies I approve of. However, what policies those might be haven't been static during my life, and I find myself wondering if they've undergone a change yet again. Hence the analysis. :)

Re:

[eustacia42.livejournal.com]

want something to expend energies on? try clutter-clearing. ;)

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

In one sense, that's exactly what I plan on doing. ;)

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

That's funny, I think my goal is to get some things UNsettled. ;)

On topic, though, you did what you did. As to whether that's unethical for you, only you can decide, of course, but I'd be interested in hearing what you come up with.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'll keep you posted. :)

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Although I am, generally, in favor of socialized health care, I think that the current American health care system has one major problem that almost no one else seems to even perceive. Essentially, it has no incentive for cost/benefit analysis. If you are insured, doctors will happily do thousands of dollars of tests on you, looking for extremely rare conditions that they wouldn't know how to treat if they found them. Since the costs are paid by the insurance companies, neither of the parties making the decision (doctor, patient) has any incentive to make efficient use of tests, or to find cheaper ways to do things. Prescription drugs are so expensive because such a huge fraction of their market isn't actually (directly) paying the costs involved. I don't have an answer for any of this, but I definitely think it's a problem that someone should be addressing.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Good point.

Basically, there's no healthy competition? ;)