LOL. What an incredibly stupid, ignorant statement. Almost as good as the "anyone making $15,000 is more than well off financially" (paraphrasing).
anyone think Gore will get in race?
- Thread starter dr. freeze
- Start date
Yeah, that 15k/yr post was one of his best, hoops.
Just for clarification on the first article, the 75 million is the number who at some point in that two year window 2000-2002 didn't have coverage. The 44 million is the number who currently don't.
Here's another one, freeze:
More than 41 million Americans without health insurance
By Patrick Martin
17 October 2002
A census report released at the end of September found that the number of Americans without health insurance rose to 41.2 million last year, a rise of 2.5 million from the figure that had been reported for 2000. The increase has two components: an upward adjustment of 1.1 million in the number of uninsured in 2000, based on more accurate census figures, and an increase of 1.4 million in the number becoming uninsured during 2001 itself.
The proportion of the US population without insurance rose from 14.2 percent in 2000 to 14.6 percent in 2001. Households at every income level showed an increase in the proportion of uninsured, with the biggest increase among middle-income families earning $75,000 a year or more. Some 6.6 million people were uninsured in that income bracket, a 14 percent rise in just one year, reflecting the heavy impact of business cost-cutting on white-collar workers and lower levels of management.
The increase in the number of uninsured would have been even greater, but for a surge in the number of people covered by Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for the poor. The number of Medicaid recipients rose from 29.5 million in 2000 to 31.6 million in 2001. This was the result, not of any liberalization in Medicaid benefits, but of increasing unemployment and poverty, which made millions more people eligible for this means-tested program.
The major factor in the increase in the number of uninsured is not unemployment itself?many families losing a full-time job are quickly plunged into poverty, making them eligible for Medicaid?but reductions in benefits for workers still on the job, especially at small businesses.
The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 63.6 percent in 2000 to 62.6 percent in 2001. The decrease was much steeper for those employed at businesses with fewer than 200 workers, where insurance coverage plunged from 67 percent to 61 percent in one year. Among the smallest businesses, those employing 25 or fewer workers, only 31.3 percent of workers were covered by health insurance.
The peculiar structure of the US health insurance system?with government-run Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but only private insurance for everyone else?means that the employed workers with full-time jobs are less likely to have health insurance coverage than anyone else. Low-paid workers, those who are least able to afford large medical bills, have the worst medical coverage, with some 23 percent uninsured.
The majority of workers who do have employment-based health insurance face ever-rising costs for premiums, co-pays and other charges. According to a recent Kaiser Foundation study, the average worker paid $2,084 for family coverage this year, up $300, or 16 percent, from the previous year. For single coverage, the average payment was $454, up 27 percent.
A separate survey by the benefits management group Towers Perrin found that large corporate employers expected to pass along cost increases of 15 percent his year, the largest annual increase in 13 years of such studies. The total cost of family coverage is expected to reach an average of $11,000 by 2005, increasing the pressure on employers to shift the burden to workers.
Corporations are also cutting their supplementary health coverage for retired workers, which pays for health care before the retirees became eligible for Medicare at age 62, or costs not covered under Medicare. Nine percent of large companies eliminated retiree health benefits for new or existing employees over the past two years, and eleven percent said they were likely to do so over the next two years.
Medicaid recipients also face cutbacks in coverage. Eighteen states are tightening eligibility rules in the current fiscal year, compared to eight the previous year. The number of states cutting services has risen from nine to fifteen, while 40 states are cutting their subsidies for prescription drugs by restricting choices or increasing co-pays.
Figures such as these are a phenomenon unique to America among the industrialized countries. The United States is the only major industrialized country that does not provide either state-run or state-paid medical care.
Concealed in the statistics are the countless individual tragedies caused by restricted access to health care?from financial disaster (medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US) to needless illnesses, pain, suffering and death.
Myriad reports have documented the US health care crisis. There is no doubt that far more Americans lost their lives in 2001 because of lack of access to needed medical care than were killed on September 11. But there is no call from Bush or the congressional Democrats for a declaration of war on this entirely preventable social evil.
The big business politicians defend the system of private profit that has resulted in the widespread denial of a fundamental human right?adequate medical care?in the wealthiest country in the world.
Just for clarification on the first article, the 75 million is the number who at some point in that two year window 2000-2002 didn't have coverage. The 44 million is the number who currently don't.
Here's another one, freeze:
More than 41 million Americans without health insurance
By Patrick Martin
17 October 2002
A census report released at the end of September found that the number of Americans without health insurance rose to 41.2 million last year, a rise of 2.5 million from the figure that had been reported for 2000. The increase has two components: an upward adjustment of 1.1 million in the number of uninsured in 2000, based on more accurate census figures, and an increase of 1.4 million in the number becoming uninsured during 2001 itself.
The proportion of the US population without insurance rose from 14.2 percent in 2000 to 14.6 percent in 2001. Households at every income level showed an increase in the proportion of uninsured, with the biggest increase among middle-income families earning $75,000 a year or more. Some 6.6 million people were uninsured in that income bracket, a 14 percent rise in just one year, reflecting the heavy impact of business cost-cutting on white-collar workers and lower levels of management.
The increase in the number of uninsured would have been even greater, but for a surge in the number of people covered by Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for the poor. The number of Medicaid recipients rose from 29.5 million in 2000 to 31.6 million in 2001. This was the result, not of any liberalization in Medicaid benefits, but of increasing unemployment and poverty, which made millions more people eligible for this means-tested program.
The major factor in the increase in the number of uninsured is not unemployment itself?many families losing a full-time job are quickly plunged into poverty, making them eligible for Medicaid?but reductions in benefits for workers still on the job, especially at small businesses.
The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 63.6 percent in 2000 to 62.6 percent in 2001. The decrease was much steeper for those employed at businesses with fewer than 200 workers, where insurance coverage plunged from 67 percent to 61 percent in one year. Among the smallest businesses, those employing 25 or fewer workers, only 31.3 percent of workers were covered by health insurance.
The peculiar structure of the US health insurance system?with government-run Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but only private insurance for everyone else?means that the employed workers with full-time jobs are less likely to have health insurance coverage than anyone else. Low-paid workers, those who are least able to afford large medical bills, have the worst medical coverage, with some 23 percent uninsured.
The majority of workers who do have employment-based health insurance face ever-rising costs for premiums, co-pays and other charges. According to a recent Kaiser Foundation study, the average worker paid $2,084 for family coverage this year, up $300, or 16 percent, from the previous year. For single coverage, the average payment was $454, up 27 percent.
A separate survey by the benefits management group Towers Perrin found that large corporate employers expected to pass along cost increases of 15 percent his year, the largest annual increase in 13 years of such studies. The total cost of family coverage is expected to reach an average of $11,000 by 2005, increasing the pressure on employers to shift the burden to workers.
Corporations are also cutting their supplementary health coverage for retired workers, which pays for health care before the retirees became eligible for Medicare at age 62, or costs not covered under Medicare. Nine percent of large companies eliminated retiree health benefits for new or existing employees over the past two years, and eleven percent said they were likely to do so over the next two years.
Medicaid recipients also face cutbacks in coverage. Eighteen states are tightening eligibility rules in the current fiscal year, compared to eight the previous year. The number of states cutting services has risen from nine to fifteen, while 40 states are cutting their subsidies for prescription drugs by restricting choices or increasing co-pays.
Figures such as these are a phenomenon unique to America among the industrialized countries. The United States is the only major industrialized country that does not provide either state-run or state-paid medical care.
Concealed in the statistics are the countless individual tragedies caused by restricted access to health care?from financial disaster (medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US) to needless illnesses, pain, suffering and death.
Myriad reports have documented the US health care crisis. There is no doubt that far more Americans lost their lives in 2001 because of lack of access to needed medical care than were killed on September 11. But there is no call from Bush or the congressional Democrats for a declaration of war on this entirely preventable social evil.
The big business politicians defend the system of private profit that has resulted in the widespread denial of a fundamental human right?adequate medical care?in the wealthiest country in the world.
Wel Doc may be right that you can stop in and get treated. But when they cant pay the bill those 60 million. Guess who gets to. you and I folks. And if you think that does'nt drive up health care cost for all of us. Guess again. I would say it drives it up more then all the law suites.
I dont completely agree with doc, but I more agree than disagree. This is the same way I feel when people dont buy life insurance. Most of these people are CHOOSING not to have coverage. Thats a financial CHOICE they make. We are talking about fully employed people who have jobs are choosing not to spend $175/month for full family coverage. Hey, thats their right, but $175 is what I would pay as a self employed single, so to cover a whole family for that much seems downright cheap to me.
It boggles my freaking mind that 6.6 million families making $75K or more CHOOSE not to have insurance - then bitch about it. These 6.6 million families arent unemployed families, these are FULLY EMPLOYED PEOPLE who CHOOSE not to have coverage!!! I am sick of people going on and on about shit like this. I am not going to say that $175 is cheap, but it sure as hell isnt expensive. And when you are making $75K+, especially for full family coverage (that is most likely taken out pre-tax as most coverages are) I would call families that dont have it highly irresponsible. Show me one situation where through no fault of their own families cant afford insurance. Someone once said, well the family had 5 kids at only made $80k between the two of them. Well boo freaking hoo, that family CHOSE to have 5 kids, the government didnt force them to. Maybe they should have been responsible enough to sit down and calculate if they could afford 5 kids.
If you have a family and you make $75K+/yr but in spite of that you cannot afford (or CHOOSE not to afford) $175/month for full medical coverage, then you and not the government, is to blame for your choices. I wish more people in this country would stop trying to blame someone else for their problems that are the result of CHOICES they made.
I would have to call $175 a very reasonable expense.
It boggles my freaking mind that 6.6 million families making $75K or more CHOOSE not to have insurance - then bitch about it. These 6.6 million families arent unemployed families, these are FULLY EMPLOYED PEOPLE who CHOOSE not to have coverage!!! I am sick of people going on and on about shit like this. I am not going to say that $175 is cheap, but it sure as hell isnt expensive. And when you are making $75K+, especially for full family coverage (that is most likely taken out pre-tax as most coverages are) I would call families that dont have it highly irresponsible. Show me one situation where through no fault of their own families cant afford insurance. Someone once said, well the family had 5 kids at only made $80k between the two of them. Well boo freaking hoo, that family CHOSE to have 5 kids, the government didnt force them to. Maybe they should have been responsible enough to sit down and calculate if they could afford 5 kids.
If you have a family and you make $75K+/yr but in spite of that you cannot afford (or CHOOSE not to afford) $175/month for full medical coverage, then you and not the government, is to blame for your choices. I wish more people in this country would stop trying to blame someone else for their problems that are the result of CHOICES they made.
I would have to call $175 a very reasonable expense.
Last edited:
I understand health insurance is high but it is available to everyone. If you DON'T have it its because YOU prefer to spend your money on other things. I can not for the life of me figure why everyone expects someone else to pay their way. --a little on the figures of those without health insurance. 1st the children that don't have it is their parents fault. Children can't obtain insuranse.
The bottom line is insurance is an intangible product,something you can't hold and feel. There are 2 kinds of people that have insurance, those that get it for free via work and those that have assets to protect that they are not willing to assume the risk. Many of the millions that don't are those that have nothing to lose. Case in point: Just had group that renewed this month that employer paid 100% of employees health. With their rate increase they decided to charge each employee $25 a month. The group, when employees benefits were paid 100% had all 35 employees enrolled,when they decided to deduct $25/month 6 dropped out. My recommendation to all employers is to "always" have the employee pay a small portion because you lose the dead wood and save on paying employers portion.
Now I will say I am sympathetic to the elderly who can't not afford high cost of drugs but I will emphatically state if health premiums would be reduced 50% the # of people not covered would not change drastically.Bottom line, if you got something to lose you will cover your ass,if you don't have squat ,you won't.
The bottom line is insurance is an intangible product,something you can't hold and feel. There are 2 kinds of people that have insurance, those that get it for free via work and those that have assets to protect that they are not willing to assume the risk. Many of the millions that don't are those that have nothing to lose. Case in point: Just had group that renewed this month that employer paid 100% of employees health. With their rate increase they decided to charge each employee $25 a month. The group, when employees benefits were paid 100% had all 35 employees enrolled,when they decided to deduct $25/month 6 dropped out. My recommendation to all employers is to "always" have the employee pay a small portion because you lose the dead wood and save on paying employers portion.
Now I will say I am sympathetic to the elderly who can't not afford high cost of drugs but I will emphatically state if health premiums would be reduced 50% the # of people not covered would not change drastically.Bottom line, if you got something to lose you will cover your ass,if you don't have squat ,you won't.
yeah its a real stupid statement....
now find a person who has had an ailment and not been treated for it when they went to the hospital
WHAT AN IDIOT I AM
Think you people!!!!!!
EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY GETS TREATED NO MATTER WHAT.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BUY INSURANCE GET IT FREE.
PERIOD.
now find a person who has had an ailment and not been treated for it when they went to the hospital
WHAT AN IDIOT I AM
Think you people!!!!!!
EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY GETS TREATED NO MATTER WHAT.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BUY INSURANCE GET IT FREE.
PERIOD.
StevieD said:
yes....even the homeless people....i see them get treated for anything they want every day
Hoops said:
YOU are ignorant for not realizing that everyone gets full health care
YOU are also ignorant for not realizing that the standard of living for someone making 15K a year in the US is in the top .001% standard of living in the history of this planet....
dr. freeze said:
Are we living in the United States or Nigeria? WTF kind of reasoning is that? LOLOLOL. The person making 15k per year in the U.S doesn't live in Nigeria or a third world country or in the ****ing Ice Age...little itty bitty difference, don't you think?
yes but thats my point....its all a matter of perspective
the anti-American crowd will berate us because we do not take care of our poor...when in fact our "poor" get free health care, shelter (if they choose to live there -- most choose to live on the streets that do live on the streets -- at least in Houston -- actually all do because they all have access to shelters), food, etc. etc. and live with a standard of living in the top .001% of the history of the world
i would rather see a more positive view of how the poor are taken care of than see what the utopian's claim is the problem with America after their own failed experiments with wealth redistribution in the Soviet empire have brought EVERYONE down to a level beneath America's "impoverished"
we will all be eating potatoes 3 times a day if the wealth redistributors and anti-achievers keep on influencing the American dream of success and keep on holding people down by taking away their fighting spirit by feeding their self-pity and laziness with one handout after another
the anti-American crowd will berate us because we do not take care of our poor...when in fact our "poor" get free health care, shelter (if they choose to live there -- most choose to live on the streets that do live on the streets -- at least in Houston -- actually all do because they all have access to shelters), food, etc. etc. and live with a standard of living in the top .001% of the history of the world
i would rather see a more positive view of how the poor are taken care of than see what the utopian's claim is the problem with America after their own failed experiments with wealth redistribution in the Soviet empire have brought EVERYONE down to a level beneath America's "impoverished"
we will all be eating potatoes 3 times a day if the wealth redistributors and anti-achievers keep on influencing the American dream of success and keep on holding people down by taking away their fighting spirit by feeding their self-pity and laziness with one handout after another
2 classmates of mine in the last year got appendicitis....one had insurance the other didnt.
Guy with insurance -- has to copay quite a bit and also has to fight insurance because they are refusing to pay for umbilical hernia which was found and repaired during surgery....
Guy without insurance -- got everything for free
Now why would anyone pay for insurance?????
And who REALLY doesn't have access to care??
The insured?? Or the uninsured???
Guy with insurance -- has to copay quite a bit and also has to fight insurance because they are refusing to pay for umbilical hernia which was found and repaired during surgery....
Guy without insurance -- got everything for free
Now why would anyone pay for insurance?????
And who REALLY doesn't have access to care??
The insured?? Or the uninsured???
What about this one, DTB? Nothing to do with you being in the insurance field, but just on the base level(the highest Dr. has ever seen).
Freeze,
I assume that don't have, and will never have, any kind of health insurance. If this is not true, then your comments are intellectually dishonest, as always.
Freeze,
I assume that don't have, and will never have, any kind of health insurance. If this is not true, then your comments are intellectually dishonest, as always.
dr. freeze said:
"YOU are also ignorant for not realizing that the standard of living for someone making 15K a year in the US is in the top .001% standard of living in the history of this planet...."
Freeze,
What?
The greatest hits just keep coming.
Freeze,
What?
The greatest hits just keep coming.
I keep seeing FREE. Nothing is free someone pays for it. Thats us folks that have insurance that has gone up like nuts last 2/3 years. If I here the clinic and hospital say everythings gone up one more time. Chit I say 12% to 15% a year that's BS.
And back To Al Gore. why should he run. Who wants the mess waiting for them. Chit load of unpayed bills. Interst rates about ready to explode. I never seen a republican spend so much money like Bush has. I thought he might be the answer. I was wrong.
And back To Al Gore. why should he run. Who wants the mess waiting for them. Chit load of unpayed bills. Interst rates about ready to explode. I never seen a republican spend so much money like Bush has. I thought he might be the answer. I was wrong.
Once again Dr. Freeze goes to extremes to try to make his claim that everyone has health insurance.
I will agree that the very poor do get treated if they get sick. But it is the middle class that suffers again. Freeze would like to eliminate this group. The group that pays the bills without any tax write-offs. We certainly would be standing in line for three potatos a day if the rich had their way.
If a middle class person gets sick and does not have health insurance he gets treated. But he pays thru the nose for the treatment.
People get laid off and lose their insurance and get sick and have to pay when they get sick.
It is an absurd statement to say that everyone in this country has medical insurance or gets treated for free. If that was the case then only a fool would have insurance.
I will agree that the very poor do get treated if they get sick. But it is the middle class that suffers again. Freeze would like to eliminate this group. The group that pays the bills without any tax write-offs. We certainly would be standing in line for three potatos a day if the rich had their way.
If a middle class person gets sick and does not have health insurance he gets treated. But he pays thru the nose for the treatment.
People get laid off and lose their insurance and get sick and have to pay when they get sick.
It is an absurd statement to say that everyone in this country has medical insurance or gets treated for free. If that was the case then only a fool would have insurance.
i used to work in the patient accounts dep't. in a major hospital in nyc.my dep't. had the responsibility of making sure that the hospital got paid. i have seen people borrow to the max on the equity of their houses to pay for care because they did not have medical ins., or because insurance didn't cover certain illnesses.
it broke my heart when men or women broke down crying when they were told of the facts of their health coverage, & what they were financially responsible for. very sad.
it broke my heart when men or women broke down crying when they were told of the facts of their health coverage, & what they were financially responsible for. very sad.
I almost always get sidetracked when I see anything from Freeze, so I forgot to post this, but I agree very much with Six-Fives analysis of the upcoming election.
i didn't read anything else in this thread so might be WAY off track but.....dr. freeze said:
if *I* didn't have insurance, they'd take my fuhkin house if i didn't pay.
I *HAVE* to have insurance, no?
maybe i should have read the whole thread because i must be missing something here.
you're dead on here, Jack.....
if you *have* anything of value it is a necessity to pay out the rear end for health insurance that doesn't cover squat when you need it to, or they will take everything you own to get their money.
those without get free treatment (as freeze stated) but as DJV says, it's those of us paying our medical bills that make up for the difference they lose out on with the uninsured and destitute.
and FREEZE, have you totally lost your freaken mind?????? making 15K per year in the Minneapolis area will not even pay RENT alone on a 2 bedroom apartment. guess food, transportation, utilities and such aren't necessary to live well??
if you *have* anything of value it is a necessity to pay out the rear end for health insurance that doesn't cover squat when you need it to, or they will take everything you own to get their money.
those without get free treatment (as freeze stated) but as DJV says, it's those of us paying our medical bills that make up for the difference they lose out on with the uninsured and destitute.
and FREEZE, have you totally lost your freaken mind?????? making 15K per year in the Minneapolis area will not even pay RENT alone on a 2 bedroom apartment. guess food, transportation, utilities and such aren't necessary to live well??
