I just read reuter news report that indicated many middle income americans lack health care. They have to pay off large medical bills. I wonder if the health care coverage is reduced by employers hence employees must bear greater burden of drug cost.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenew...S-UNINSURED.xml

This is news why? Or should I say, since when?

Picard, this doesn't speak directly to your second sentence, but I think it addresses your first.

I remember reading a survey about ten years ago. They asked folks how satisfied they were with their health care arrangements. Roughly 75% said that they were adequately covered. Then they asked the same folks how what percentage of Americans had adequate health care coverage. The reply? The average American believed that only 25% had adequate coverage.

The moral of that is that the actual problem was (back then) only one third as bad as people believed! I think that says a lot about how accurate the media reports of the health care crisis are.

Nels

I don't know why the news report the issue again. Someone did survey again. My uncle in Texas has medical coverage but it still doesn't pay for his Hepatis C treatment. It shows there are many people routinely have to pay large medical bills out their own pocket.

A lot of it depends on the medical insurance coverage you select. There are lots of health plans here, some with higher deductibles than others. Each one has its pluses and minuses.

I agree -- I think the media reaction is what is making this seem larger than it is. The folks living on the street or with limited means are always going to have a problem securing adequate health care; that's probably no different today versus 25 years ago, or even 25 years from now. There are still low cost and public medical clinics scattered throughout major cities for these folks to use.

Granted, I can't afford to be whisked away to Europe on a private jet to have access to the latest medical breakthroughs and achievements. But then neither can most of the population.

The media needs to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not mix them up.

What has this have to do with wilderness survival?

Nothing, but I suspect that's why it's in this section of the ETS forums. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Around The Campfire - A place for Chit Chat about life or subjects of interest other than Survival or Emergency Preparedness."

<rant>

I find the entire health insurance thing to be ridiculous. My car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes or even major repairs. Why should I have to pay my health insurance company so that they can just pay me (some of it) back in the form of routine checkups and sniffling-kid visits? Along with adding another layer of hassles. I need a full-time accountant just to keep up with all the incorrectly submitted claims that were rejected by the insurance company and suddenly become *my* problem!

My goal in life is to walk into the doctor’s office and when they ask for my insurance info, smack down a stack of 50’s and say “Here’s MY insurance, any questions?”

If I could just invest the $1200 or so a month my employer is paying in insurance premiums, I’d soon have myself a pretty nice “insurance” fund.

</rant>

Maybe the reason they lack health care is that they are all pawning all their furs, watches, and jewelry for gas. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Seriously though, look at the source of the study. You don't think that The Commonwealth Fund could be just a little biased, do you?