I DO have insurance, and just showing up in ER, for anything, is gonna cost me $100.

That's very true, but given scenario Brad laid out, why would you use the ER?  Why not start with your primary care-giver and then, if necessary, get referred out to a better equipped facility?  Or why not urgent care?  It seems to me that there are a lot of options available that don't necessarily force a sick person into an ER.

----------------------------

A fair question - I was going from an equivalence to Brad's scenario, that of needing help NOW.

If I were to go to Urgent Care instead, which would be a viable option, my co-pay is $75.  Brad still wins at the lobby.

If it were something that could wait for my primary physician - like my gall bladder pain back in 2000, or whatever I'm going through these past few weeks (intermittent gall bladder pain, which is a damn good trick since I am not supposed to HAVE a gall bladder any more), my co-pay is $20, up from $15 two years ago, and likely to increase again soon.  Good thing we don't have a health care crisis!

Look - we already HAVE socialized medicine.  We're just doing it in the worst possible way.  This bill ramps us up to the second or third worst possible way.  Someday someone with guts will get us to single payer.  Until then we'll just have to keep lying to ourselves.

I agree with Kevin that a single payer socialist system would be the best, but even this first step in that direction - this first feeble step? Is a million times better than what we have.

And I like this plan - Americans are shitting their pants in fear of this change, thanks to all the vile lies and propaganda - just wait till they actually try it! They'll love it.

Another thing, by the way, that the insurance companies are so afraid of...

I wish so many of the politicans (and journalists, it seems) would get over their fear of "socialism".

Like I've said before, universal health care was at its beginning mostly a conservative measure. Yes, in part it was a response to demands from workers, unions and socialists (who were actually more upset than conservatives that health care was introduced, as it  pulled the rug from under them in terms of talking points).

But it didn't take long for the government and employers to realize that:
1) It improved the general health of workers, resulting in higher productivity.
2) It reduced periods of illness for skilled or highly trained workers, and in many cases helped skilled workers who would otherwise end up destitute and unproductive, return to work.  This in turn increased productivity and profits.
3) It improved the morale of workers and in many cases helped with workplace loyalty and stability.
4) It promoted social stability, as people otherwise left destitute or crippled by untreated illnesses or workplace injuries were now productive instead of having to turn to begging, charity or crime for survival, the demand for "revolutionary" social reforms became less urgent, and the state became a guarantee for the general welfare of the people, rather than an authority that only made demands.

Now, the general "complaints" about universal health care are about "freeloading" patients, government inefficiency and "people going into my pocket to pay for somebody else's health care". Et cetera. 

What people forget is that it's not about dollar amounts, it's about what you get for it.

Under true universal healthcare, yes, people will pay for healthcare, but they won't have to worry about affording it.  They will all have access to healthcare automatically, making it easier to keep an eye on what's left.  Smaller businesses will benefit the most, as the tax-changes (moving the "payments" to a tax instead of payments to an insurance company) can be made more favorable to them.  That is certainly the case here.  Under the current system in the US, with "bulk insurance", large corporations pay much less for health care for each of their employees than small businesses, that is unless they manage to avoid having insurance for them at all.

An improvement in the general health, an end to medical bankruptcy,  the possibility of investing more money in training doctors and nurses for areas that have been underserved due to a lack of "paying" patients.  Quicker return to the workplace for people who have previosuly been unable to afford treatments that would enable them to work fully again. 

Admittedly, that is the best case scenarion ,and all systems will have flaws and shortcomings, but in the end we're not really talking about a drain on the US economy. We're talking about a more energized, capable workforce.  We're talking about an increase in preventative care.  We're talking about improving the lives of communities, improving the way you do business, even making businesses more competitive in a global market.

Though perhaps large corporations who have little or no use for skilled workers, have a large pool of available potential staff and have ways of paying minimally or not at all for healthcare (due to skirting the rules, like using only part-time employees who don't qualify for mandatory coverage by their employer) may suffer economically due to such changes.     

Anyway - but here's the bigger problem - The INDUSTRY that makes money off human suffering and misery? They make a shitload of money from that suffering, misery and death. And any changes to that is going to put a hurt on their cash flow, so they've launched a pretty severe campaign to stop this - part of which includes a massive disinformation campaign full of lies and fear-mongering. This is where they're working a kind of smart play - they've got the average american shitting their pants over death panels and high taxes and lack of care (the irony is killing me. And cancer patients. And diabetics. And... well... ) and so on. And these people are out in force (and in their pyjammas) screaming to their local representatives about how this plan needs to be stopped, and that's hurting things in moving it forward, in watering it down.

Sometimes, I'm super super proud to be an American - we have an AWESOME goverment (when it works) and the best constitution in the world, and all sorts of freedoms that the rest of the world would give a left nut for but then ... this kind of horseshit...

I was at a memorial service for a friend last night - she was stabbed to death by a psycho lover - so we're out there having a moment in front of her apartment, letting her parents grieve, and some jack-ass in sleep-wear takes a phone call (TURN OFF YOUR GOD-DAMNED PHONES AT A DEATH SERVICE YOU TOOTHLESS SCUM) and then loudly carries on a converstaion about where she can score some vicodin and...

You know what? Screw 'em. Let them go without healthcare. Let these fat lazy disgraces sit in their own filth and choke on it.

But I think that, and then I realize that, no, no, these people need help. They need education. They need to put down their slurpies and mega-boxes of fried sugar they got at the whulmart and put on some pants and grow up, but they need help. They're like children; they don't know better and they just need help. It's just... overwhelming... I don't know...

50 bucks sounds about what I would pay, give or take, with the primary insurance coverage my wife and I provide for ourselves.  But since we supplement with AFLAC, I probably would have walked away with a check for a couple hundred bucks in my pocket; for the trouble of getting sick, I suppose.

No, that's a false choice.  What I'm saying is, if I have to get sick, I'm happy to get immediate treatment and walk away two hundred dollars, give or take, richer than I was before I got sick.

******************

So can I safely assume that the insurance you provide for yourself and your wife is free? Because if it's not then there is no way you walk out $200 richer. Tell me how much ahead you are after figuring in your premium.

The insurance I used to have ran over $800 a month for a family plan. Add on another $120 a month for dental, eye and supplemental cancer and ICU coverage and that comes out to $920 a month. I paid 25% or $230 and my company paid the rest.