Here’s a story which took place, quite a few years ago, in California. A friend of mine who has a variety of long term health issues was recommended to try regular treatment in a hyperbaric chamber. These chambers are used to treat decompression sickness and athletic injuries, among other things, and each treatment in a hospital (at the time the story took place) cost about $700. Most of that cost was dictated by insurance companies and lawyers, who insisted that a number of specialists be physically available during each session, even though each of them might only be needed in less than 1% of cases, and those cases could rightfully be assumed to represent those most ill, near death, etc.

The friend found a co-op, which she joined. The members of it agreed in writing to limit (not waive) litigation recourse. The co-op bought their own chamber, opened and operated their own facility with medical staff, and the members paid (to the best of my recollection) approximately $200 per session. The entire thing was financed based on the members’ requirements which equated to a fully subscribed daily use of the chamber.

I believe that the typical US hospital cost of these sessions today is over $1000. Per session. Per patient.

All I hear now days is how much people pay in premiums for their health insurance. This guy pays $600 a month for his family, that girl pays $700, and so on. Some of the reasons these premiums are so high are the the continuing raise in health care costs. I don’t know the last time anyone has been in the hospital, but I was in overnight three years ago for a surgery and and for that overnight stay my hospital bill alone was over $16,000. Granted insurance companies negotiate rates, and if you are smart enough to use a participating hospital you will benefit from those negotiations, but still these costs contribute. Another thing that contributes is how sick the people at your work are. That’s putting it in extreme layman’s terms, but as my sister once said- “Man, we had three hysterectomies and a lady with cancer this year our premiums are going to sky rocket”. In a sense, you pay for what you use. No different really than car insurance. You have a wreck, your car insurance goes up.

To address the issue of things being denied like prescription drugs. I’m guessing MissM’s son’s medication may of been denied as Experimental/Investigational. I could be wrong, but from the description she gave, that’s what it sounds like. Often times doctors try to prescribe medications that are over the manufactures recommended dosage limits. It’s not illegal for pharmacies to fill it, but if the manufacturer doesn’t recommend a dosage that high or that frequent, then it’s not proven to work and in most cases insurance companies aren’t going to pay for it. People get mad at their Insurance and say they are trying to practice medicine when in fact sometimes people should be questioning their doctors a little more thoroughly. As far as birth control pills not being covered but Viagra is…There are always condoms…

Here’s something I’ve always wondered. We never hear people asking our auto insurance to cover our new tires or our new transmission. Why are we expecting our health insurance to cover things that are clearly excluded?

The fallacy with UHC is that somehow the dreaded evil “profit motive” is responsible for jacking up prices, and if we eliminate “profit” we’ll all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

In reality, the current system is “broken” because no one knows what the hell anything costs, therefore price doesn’t matter. Under the common perception of private healthcare, you aren’t paying for treatment, the company is. That could not be further from the truth. YOU never got the see the bill, so you just ASSUME the insurance company and the primary care physicians settled at a fair rate. Just like most people are numb to the amount they pay in taxes, because the vast majority are either excised before “take-home pay,” or are embedded in the prices we pay at the end.

Free markets work when individuals have access to actual information, costs and benefits, risks and downsides. You’re assuming that taking Insurance out of the equation will somehow “liberate” the price information that is now hidden from consumers.

And I don’t know what kind of crappy plan you have that doesn’t pick up birth control. That’s been included in everything I’ve been a part of for more than a dozen years. (And I used to work in teevee news, and they routinely have crappy and cheapass coverage.)

Which actually segues to another point: you’re complaining about a system that is TOO restrictive, and wanting to replace it with one that is UNIVERSALLY so. You have a crappy insurer, and if the rules allowed for more freedom, you’d be able to freely shop for a plan that fit your comfort level. Health insurance wasn’t always tied to employment – that came about with WWII, when FDR imposed a wage freeze. Companies were forced to compete for an already smaller worker pool, and since they couldn’t offer more money instead offered “benefits.”

Our system is broken, because of one well-meaning decision after another, ALL of them removing freedoms instead of improving them. The answer isn’t to continue in that direction.

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have” – Thomas Jefferson

I assume you can afford your child’s medication and that you have purchased the required prescription. Otherwise it would be very wrong for you to be spending money to access the Internet while neglecting the health care needs of your son.

So you are not being denied access to any care or required medication.

You can always buy better insurance – cancel the Internet and cable and pay more for an insurance plan that covers your medication needs.

See – you have that choice. You have the choice to access the health care you need.

My argument is that if it is run by the government that choice will be removed from you – and from me. I would rather have the choice.

Besides – why should I pay for your son’s prescription? You CAN pay for it, so why should I?

And if we get government supplied health care you will be paying for all of that Viagra. Why should you?

The Food Stamp program is raising people that expect to be cared for and that have little reason to change things – because as long as they demonstrate the need, the care is never-ending. There is little incentive to get off of food stamps, and almost every reason (except personal pride) to stay on food stamps.

We can’t create a society where everyone expects “the government” to take care of them. The government has no money that did not come from us – and nothing is free. And eventually there will be too many people taking, and not enough to carry them all.

Of course many people are quite happy with this approach. I am not one of them.

When you spend your OWN money on YOURSELF, you buy a used set of Pings at the second-hand golf shop.

When you spend your OWN money on SOMEONE ELSE, you get them a greeting card or something trivial that was on sale.

When you spend SOMEONE ELSE’S money on YOURSELF, you get the most expensive brand new space-age clubs on the market.

And when you spend SOMEONE ELSE’S money on SOMEONE ELSE – you end up getting diamond-encrusted wheelchairs for Olympic athletes, and subsidies for fur-bearing trout farms. It doesn’t matter what it is, how useful it is, or what the **** it costs!