she couldn't afford the the $3,000 to $6,000/year for the supplemental policy, or she hadn't heard of any managed care policies, which incidentally still have co-pays, and typically no out of pocket maximums.

Of course I realize those would be pale in comparison to the 20% you're required to pay on straight Medicare.

Still that isn't the issue. The issue is why does this happen in the US, and no where else in the [civilized] world?

It shouldn't be an issue at all, and for you to make it one based on some higher morality of personal responsibility, well, that just goes to show how little you care about anyone other than yourself, and maybe your family.

And what's the big deal about a government panel deciding what care is cost effective? For profit health insurers do all the time. And what about all those who can't afford any health care at all, and die because of it. 

But I forgot, you don't want to bring that to anyone's attention, because that doesn't fit your agenda.

Marc
Living with MCL

> the $3,000 to $6,000/year for the supplemental policy

Medicare Advantage plans run about $40/month, not thousands of dollars per year.
And many cap OOP expenses at $5,000, not some unlimited amount.

If you'll note, I didn't say Advantage plans cost $3,000 to $6,000. I said supplemental plans. But with an MA plan there can still be large co-pays, which many people on a fixed income can't afford. But remember I also agreed it would have been pale in comparison.

But the other thing about MA plans, you're restricted to in network doctors. You can't choose your own doctor, which is what many people are concerned about under a public option, i.e. they won't be able to choose their own doctor.

> no where else in the [civilized] world? [people can't pay their health car bills]

You're kidding, right? How about Canada, Great Britain, even Japan?

So you're telling me, that people in Canada, the UK and Japan, face bankruptcy due to not being able to pay their health care bills. 

NOW THAT'S JUST DOWN RIGHT LIE. 

> For profit health insurers do [that] all the time

Um, no, they don't: no insurer (save
Medicare and the VA, both government-run systems) has the power to deny
care. The most they can do is limit how much they'll pay for it. Big
difference: if you disagree with their call, you can sue. Whom do you
sue when MC or the VA actually denies care?

Yeah, I've heard you make that misleading statement before. "Insurance companies don't deny care, they only limit how much they'll pay, or not pay. Only health care providers deny care."

So I guess what you're saying is under a government plan, the government will actually force providers not to provide care, even if the person can pay out of pocket. Is that what you're saying.

ANOTHER LIE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST A COMPLETE DISTORTION OF THE FACTS.

And it doesn't do much good to sue someone after you're dead. Just ask Natalie Sarkisyan who couldn't get a liver transplant, because CIGNA decided it wouldn't do any good. It didn't help her to be able to sue, despite CIGNA giving in. She died before the transplant could take place.  And that was what the insurance company was counting on.

I guess maybe you forgot about that!

> and die because of it.

Doesn't happen here. Between EMTALA and other regulations, on the rare occasion that the system "fails," it's a major deal.

Sounds like someone needs to switch to decaf.

Another distortion.

EMTALA only requires stabilization of a patient. If you're not on your death bed, health care providers are not required to provide any care.

IOW, if you have cancer, it would have to so far advanced, and you'd have to be so sick, the likelihood of being cured, would be slim at best, before anyone would be required to provide care. At which point you would die.

I think you really need to get a grip on reality. You are so closely tied to the status quo, you have no concept of what goes on in the real world.

In the words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessep (A Few Good Men), 

You can't handle the truth!

Marc
Living with MCL

1) Semantics. I'm not going to argue that one.

2) Let's not forget the $100+ per day (usually limited to first 10 days) for hospital stays. Still, I admit it's better than the alternative.

3) That depends on whether you have a policy based on Initial Age (IA) or Attained Age (AA). AA policies start out in the range you specified, but increase dramatically as you age. I have friends (in there 80's) paying $1,700 per month for a supplemental policy. Fortunately they can afford it. Most cannot.

IA policies start out at considerable higher rates $400 to $500/month. I've already checked it out.

4) But with [original] Medicare, you have a much wider network to choose from, i.e. the entire country, not just one particular local. 

5) I wasn't arguing that point. But if you want to use that argument, Medicare doesn't deny care either.

6) Yes that is a problem, but it is one brought on by the system we have established, which principally benefits the more fortunate in society. It's an unjust system, and leaves many out in the cold. The rest of the world has recognized the necessity and the social aspect of health care, and have developed systems to reduce those inequities. 

Of course nothing's perfect, but the rest of the world has done a considerably better job of addressing the inequities than the US.  

7) Not true! CIGNA originally denied paying for the transplant. Her doctors said she had a 65% chance of surviving 6 months. It was only after all the media hoopla that CIGNA gave in, and agreed to pay for the operation. Of course, we all know, by the time they did that, it was too late.

Now I don't want to argue the merits of the operation, and whether spending large sums of money in cases similar to these is cost effective, because I don't think it is.

The problem relating to this health care debate is, people are concerned if government gets involved, then situations like this will occur, where the government denies paying for care (killing grandma), when in reality, it already occurs. People have just not been informed of the truth. They have been misled by people like you, who have a vested interest in the status quo.

What everybody is also afraid of is the government taking over health care, and coming between the doctor patient relationship, when the system in existance right now already does that. The difference being, instead of the government coming between the doctor patient relationship, it's a [greedy] for profit health insurance company. 

A society that won't take care of it's weakest and most vulnerable members is not a strong society, and you can already see the fabric of this society starting to tear apart. The more we refuse to address the inequities in the system, and only consider what is in our own individual best interest, the more likely we will all suffer.

Marc
Living with MCL

That ought to make you happy! Isn't that what it's all about?

No where in the constitution does it say health care is a right. If a few poor women should die prematurely from breast cancer, that's none of your concern. Just so long as you don't have to contribute your hard earned dollars helping to pay for health care of someone else?

I'm just surprised you're not out lobbying for Ohio to adopt the same policy.

And besides, and as you continually point out, the state of CA isn't denying anyone a mammogram, they're simply reducing how much they're going to pay.

Kind of like Natalie Sarkisyan, right?

And I'll bet, if a for-profit health insurance company had made that same decision, you'd be highlighting what a sound medical decision that was.

You can't hide it Henry, you're really nothing but a hippocrit.

Marc
Living with MCL