Government funded health care

[Cookie]

So my hubby and I have had many recent discussions (to be nice about it) about the pros and cons of government sponsored health care systems. I mentioned to him that many of the people on this forum are from countries with government sponsored health systems and it appears to me that those people, in general, have less complaints about the quality of their health care and insurance than most of te people here is the US. Since we all rely so heavily on a good health care system, I am just curious to get other's thoughts on the subject...especially our friends up north, down under and abroad : )

 

[Jeff D.]

I'm not so sure. I've heard a few people on this forum from Canada and England who have had to wait years for ostomy reversals which I haven't heard that much here although there are always horror stories. I'm just not so sure about government funded health care.

 

[D Bergy]

Other countries may have found a good way to provide health care using a government system. They also may not have the scoundrels we have running our country.

I cannot name one single large government program in the U.S. that is run well.

Social Security has a huge deficit as politicians are always better at spending money without any means of paying for it.

Medicare is in the same boat and more or less operates on the money they steal from doctors which raises private insurance rates to compensate for the loses.

We will not even get into the Veterans administration.

I just wonder what miracle is going to occur that will make government run health care any more successful than the programs they already operate?

Dan

 

[BWS1982]

This is a little political if you ask me, but my opinion (key point) is that we have better leadership in place at this point than we did in certain other administrations, so socialized medicine should, theoretically, work better than the crap we go through now. It wouldn't be a "free for all" like some other nations have....We don't have to do it identically as Canada does, from what I understand the goal would be a hybrid system of sorts, combining attributes of other country's systems with ones implemented astutely into a unique one. I feel the potential is there, but yes, it could go sideways and be worse than we have it now. I just don't see it getting worse than we have it now. Have you talked to Kim and Mike about insurance? They're some of millions who'd be better off.

Again, my own opinion.

 

[Cookie]

Thanks for your input everybody. This is one of those issues that I really struggle with forming an opinion on. I mean, who doesn't want to see a system where everybody has equal access to top notch health care? I just really want to know that it can actually work. I'm with you, Dan, that when it comes to government run anything, my views tend to get a little cynical. I would love to know more details about how a "hybrid" sytem could actually work, because, to be honest, I just don't see it. For me it would have to be all or nothing or you end up with the same situation we have now with Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[danman]

Ireland has a social medical system. For the most part, it works fine.

There can be issues with waiting times for hospital visits, but generally, if you need medical help, you will get it.

I've experienced medical care in Britain, and I didn't feel that it was as comprehensive as the Irish system. In fact, one of my neighbours is a Gastro consultant in a hospital in Northern Ireland (Part of the British NHS system), he told me that the meds I was on (Humira and infliximab), he would find it very hard to justify prescribing to his patients. He can prescribe then, but he has to justify the cost.

My GI prescribed me humira and Infliximab with no second thoughts about the cost.

Other European countries have different variations of social medical care and "Hybrid" systems.

I'm glad I have the medical care that I have, it takes away one worry, cost.

 

[D Bergy]

The bigger the country, the harder it is to manage such an all encompassing program. What works in Cuba is not going to work the same in the U.S.
The variations in governments make an accurate prediction difficult in how such a system will work here.

The current administration may be completely competent in managing this, all though I doubt it. The problem is that some administration, in the future, is going to do something stupid with it and then you are basically stuck with it, and stuck with paying for it.

I support health care reform, but the whole system needs reform. This proposed solution works within a system that is high cost, with marginal results. It is driven by manufacturs of medical devices, pharmacuetical companies, insurers, and other special interest groups. it is not patient driven or result driven.

The incentives need to be correct before the system can function properly. Only then can effective treatment and lower costs come together to make it affordable to be sick. This problem did not exist until about the 1970"s. We have to look at what happened between then and now and make corrections.

Dan

 

[D Bergy]

Just the most recent problem at the VA.

While VA works to address claims backlog, the number grows to nearly 1 million
http://www.startribune.com/nation/48439387.html

Dan

 

[Cookie]

The incentives need to be correct before the system can function properly. Only then can effective treatment and lower costs come together to make it affordable to be sick. This problem did not exist until about the 1970"s. We have to look at what happened between then and now and make corrections.

Dan

Agreed. In addition to aging Baby Boomers and longer life expectancies, one major thing that has happened between 1970 and now is that drug companies are allowed to advertise prescription medication on television. Will someone PLEASE tell me who (besides the lobbyists and the politicians whose pockets they are stuffing) decided that this is a good idea????? The result is that you are now hard-pressed to find an American who is not taking a precsription drug on a daily basis, whether they need it or not! The drug companies are now making drugs to counteract the side-effects of the drugs they are already cramming down people's throats...it's just plain ridiculous!

 

[BWS1982]

Good points Bergy, I guess I'm speaking to an "on paper" assessment...it could work, but it could be done wrong just the same...and I suppose my assertion of it working is presuming a reform of sorts is coinciding with the socialization (partial), so that it is patient driven. If we can fix certain aspects, then implement, I think it could be done....logistics of it are a bit complex, but I see possibility.

 

[D Bergy]

I think it has to happen. We cannot have great expensive health care for one half the population and substandard or no health care for the other half.

Health care is not a right, but I think it is a moral imperative. I do not think I want to live in a country in which we can watch people die because we just do not have the initiative to provide basic health services. No face lifts, liposuction, but just good diagnostics and treatments.

I hope this new program works over time, but people are really going to have to voice their opinions when it gets out of hand, and it will.

The tax increase will be substantial, but if it is well run, I do not mind paying my share.

Dan

 

[D Bergy]

Here is another concern of mine, and Thomas Jefferson's for that matter.

A wise man once said:
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls of those who live under tyranny."-- Thomas Jefferson

We are not too far from that scenario today.

Very prophetic.

Dan

 

[jed]

just here quickly, and havent read the other replies, but heres my view on ozzie healthcare.

everyone pays taxs, some of those taxs go towards public health.

everyone is entitled to public health care.

on public health, the max you will pay for a docs appointment is around $50. i go to bulk-billing doctors, i dont pay a thing

most meds in oz are cover by PBS (pharaceutical benefits scheme), they cost no more than $33 (no matter what it is). there are other drugs that only get on PBS if you meet certain "markers"

crohns meds on that type of PBS scheme are the biologicals (infliximab etc etc), to get these for free, you need a certain point score (i.e. pain, loss of incom, lack of social ability etc etc).

emergency surgery is free. you have a car crash and need a leg removed, your not going to wake up with a $100k bill waiting for you. its free!.

i stayed in hospital for 42 days, then a month after that a 7 day stay with major surgery (large intestine removeal). it was free. can someone tell me what that would cost you in america?

slight con - non-emergency cases are placed on a waiting list. people may wait for a year for a hip replacement if it isnt deemed life ending, but they do get it done for free when they get it.


our private health system over here does exist, you get first choice for a single room. you pay a gap in your bill for hospital stays?? lol, use medicare instead

if you earn over $50k as a single person, then you get a tax rebate if you have private health.

 

[kello82]

i dont know too much about how things cost, or what our insurance covers. i remember seeing a couple bills though, so to compare to jed's details:

-my ileo cost $4200
-i think about $1000 per night of hospy stay is about right. i remember that number somehow...i remember one of my stays being as much as a tropical vacay or something, and a hella lot less fun!

again, these are just the numbers ive seen, idk what we actually pay. but for someone without insurance? holy crap.

edit-oh! i remember that remi ran about $800 per infusion.
again, not what we paid, but thats the price. i was scared what would happen once i cant be under my dads insurance anymore...
still am.

edit 2- hah one more thing.
ostomy supplies? which a LOT of insurances dont cover. (i got lucky once again)
about $50 for a box of 5 flanges. i change every 2 days right now, so one box per 10 days $50 for just that one supply, similar pricing for pouches, skin barriers, tapes, powders, etc.
hah i would estimate that every time i throw an appliance in the trash, its about $30 worth of stuff in total. $30 in the trash every two days right now.
how do people get by if their plan doesnt cover this stuff???? it boggles me.

 

[danman]

My last hospital stay was for 4 weeks. We pay 66euros a night for a max of 7 nights, then after it's free. All care/surgery/meds are supplied for this 66euros.

I don't get a general medical card, as I'm working. So I pay a minimum fee for my medical supplies, 100euros per month (88euros up until the last budget). That covers all meds and ostomy supplies for me and my family. I pay this monthly anyway, so if my wife or son need meds, they get them free.

My Humira, infliximab, antibiotics, Pred, 6-mercaptapurin all fell under this category, so the most I've ever had to pay is 100euros a month.

We also have waiting lists for minor surgery, the same as Oz Jed, but we have a system where if a patient waits more than 3 months from the time of their consultation, they must get the surgery privately. This happened to my mother, when she had surgery 2 years ago. It can be abused by some hospitals, by putting patients of, and not calling them for their consultation, but by and large the system works.

It's funny, that in this country, people constantly complain about the healthcare system in this country. It's usually people that don't have to regularly use it like me. I've never had any reason to complain about my care. It's always been fast and they've never considered the cost.

We actually have a 2 tier system too, but my Consultant Gastro advised me years ago not to pay for private insurance. He told me it was a waste of money if you have a chronic illness. they would charge me more and I would get nothing extra back. There was even a mother on the radio a few years ago talking about her son with Crohn's. She had private insurance, but they would only pay half of the cost for infliximab. She had to pay the remainder of the 1,000euro. She could not afford this, so her son only got 2 infusions.

I telephoned the station to get in contact with her, to explain how to get it for free, but she never contacted me.
People complain about our system, but if they research it, there are systems in place to get meds. You just have to have a good GI to explain it.

 

[danman]

I know it's a political debate, and somthing I will never grasp is the American negitivity towards it. So I'm not asking a politics question here.

Is there any one on these boards that feel they might benifit from the healthcare reform bill that was past yesterday?

I've read a lot over the past few years from people posting on here, that have problems getting insurance or getting the company to pay for meds/surgeries.

Will this benefit any of our posters. Will it make their lives any easier?

 

[katiesue1506]

I will benefit. I will get to stay on my parent's insurance till age 26, they can't deny me when I do get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, and there will be not medical care cap on how much you receive from the insurance.

An issue I'd like to see worked out: increasing competition between insurance companies to lower premiums.

I had a big nasty debate about this with someone today. I will personally benefit from this, but I do think it will cost a lot of money. I don't think its the answer, but its a step in the right direction towards fixing the broken system we have now.

 

[pb4]

Regardless of the size of the country, it can be done...in Canada our health care varies from province to province, some provinces have it better than others, but bottom line is everyone is covered, and I'll take that over the US health care system any day. The US should be so lucky if they finally get universal health care, there are pros and cons to everything but I'll tell you this, I've heard alot more horror stories about things that happen in the US health care system compared to Canada...and they are horror stories that people have paid out of pocket to have happen to them...dark ages or what?

One other major difference between universal health care vs private, there is no discrimination in regards to those that have money getting better service (or getting any service period) everyone gets the same service regardless if they're rich or homeless.

 

[BWS1982]

Every US citizen could or would benefit, so this is unquestionably an improvement (that is a politically charged statement, but it's also valid if you read on).

At my job, I have talked to millionaires who've lost everything because of cancer or major medical catastrophes. I've talked to consumers who have filed for bankruptcy (I've filed forms for them, I know) because of a crippling car accident, or because of a chronic illness. I've spoken to consumers who've lost their home trying to pay off hospital bills or medicines because not all hospitals/entities work with hardship designations. Nobody can guarantee they are set for life, that they are untouchable, invincible. When medical bills can go into the seven digit realm, medical care is expensive for everybody.

In a case like that, losing everything, you now have other insurance to fall back to, more than mere COBRA coverage (temporary and expensive coverage, to non-US citizens)...Every member on this forum would be impacted. We have what is considered a pre-existing condition, and if we miraculously get insurance under the old way, we would pay through the nose for it, for something NOT in our control. Now we have options and a safety net, we have affordability, and now we will soon be "one of the normal people" because pre-existing or not, we WILL have access to coverage. The scope of this is astounding, a new paradigm, whether people mistakenly think they can guarantee they'll never need this safety net or not, it is there for them. It will save them if the need arises.

I'm there with you Danman, I don't understand a single breath of air that comes out of people who go on about "socialism" as if it's part of the Third Reich. They throw around the word haphazardly, as if it's an insult or a bad concept, not even realizing "socialism" and "socialized" are two different things. You know what? Countries that have socialized medicine feel sorry for us. That in itself is damning. Put away all the other evidence, and focus on that. That fact alone has a lot of volume to it. We have socialized public education, socialized public libraries, socialized police and fire protection, socialized military protection, the FDA, the FTC, the OCC... but for some stupid reason, we chose to put health insurance in the hands of heinous tyrants, and made it "a luxury" to attain and hope for.

I cannot comprehend the mentality that classifies this as a horrible thing. Maybe they need a wake-up call, some grand irony. Maybe they need to become ill, lose everything, get even sicker, and see why this motion was enacted. I'm tired of hearing the negativity you mention, the mindset that seems to judge this from some irrational point of view, some "survival of the fittest"-esque position. Maybe then those folks would no longer look at it on paper, view it as theoretical, and they'd stop computing the impact to national debt. There won't be any citizens to pay off the national debt if we all die off from lack of healthcare. No other explanation justifies the inability to see this as an improvement, these people aren't in touch with the reality. This problem is not on paper, it's not a fictitious sales piece conjured up to sell it, the problem is real, and apparently words don't translate, case stories don't register, maybe a slap in the face by reality would. It's not hypothetical, it's destroying lives.

To ask who here could/would benefit is simple to answer: all.

 

[GoJohnnyGo]

No system is perfect, naturally, but as someone supposedly enslaved under the brutal, oppressive yoke of Commie universal healthcare, I'm doing okay. I whine and moan about wait times, but the time I had an intestinal blockage, I went into an emergency room at 9:00 pm, and was on an operating table by 2:00 a.m.

The system is continually tinkered with, but Canada has had this for 45 years now and has yet to collapse. Even the right wing conservative parties here are smart enough not to even contemplate dismantling it.

 

[katiesue1506]

I had a very nasty debate with a soon-to-be nurse and she was mad as hell that this bill passed saying it was gonna cause her to get paid less in her future career as a nurse. And for a while she'd be the breadwinner in her home until her fiance's visa was accepted.
She basically told me that she was worried about not making as much money as she could as a nurse while I was worried about my health. People like her are they reason the system is corrupt... always wanting more money and driving care cost out the wazoo. I know I'm being selfish here, but I think my health and the health of everyone else is farrr more important than her salary.

 

[danman]

Thanks for your reply, Katiesue and Benson.

I have a friend, he was my best man at my wedding, he's a U.S. Citizen and has lived there most of his life. Apart from a short spell here in Ireland when he was young.

He was her at Christmas time, and I asked him why is there such contraversy in the States about healthcare.

He just said that I would never be able to understand. He said that he couldn't really understand the controversy.
He is quite lucky, he has a very good and high paying job with very good healthcare cover.

I guess, it's something that non-Americans can never grasp.

All that I know about U.S. Healthcare, is what I read on this site.

I suppose, we are at the very edge of healcare. It effects us more than most.

 

[Jeff D.]

I don't want to get into my views on this but Katiesue I may be able to shed light on why your friend wants more money. Nurses pretty much run the hospital. Hospitals understaff and underpay nurses for the amount of work they do. A lot of hospital nurses pretty much live their lives on call and when the hospital needs and extra nurse they have to work or else they could be out of a job. Nurses don't always have time to even eat lunch or go to the bathroom during a shift and the onlt thing that keeps these nurses going is that they care for their patients and the money they will be bringing in. How would you feel if all of a sudden all the nurses walked out of their jobs, with this healthcare bill and more budget cuts a strike may just happen.

 

[RogerDoger]

Other than wait times for some things, I'm satisfied overall with Canada's healthcare system. However, I do support a parallel private system; if one is willing to pay the money, one shouldn't have to wait; it also keeps the docs who are in it solely for the money (a piss poor reason to do anything) here in Canada. If I'm prepared to pay for it, I really don't want to have to cross the border to have a test or procedure done. I hate crossing the border so much now; I never plan to visit the States again. Authority rubs me the wrong way.

You know something? Entering Russia is much easier and the borderguards don't make you feel like a piece of feces.

 

[BWS1982]

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...hy-people-go-bankrupt?mod=bb-checking_savings

Medical expenses listed as the number one reason for bankruptcy, above all else.

I agree with the integral status nurses have, but am of the belief that this won't negatively affect them, though I can't guarantee that. It's just that I'm not understanding how this would be bad for them or any medical professional. I think that now more people will have medical care, and that will drive the need for nurses up, only making them more sought after and well paid (they already have one of the most demanded jobs going into the next decade, even before this). This could also lead to more overworking, but, I would think it would be better to be sought after and overworked than not needed at all or obsolete.

That's just my own theory and thoughts, but I'm not working in the medical field. What I do recall is how much a few of my doctors hate insurance companies. My regular GP, who saw me before any GI's did because I wasn't sure what was wrong with me yet, said that helping people is not always profitable, that he said doctors would make terrible business men because a good one puts cost second to health. He despised the insurance companies' mentalities. That isn't towards nurses' salaries, that's aimed at the view I've encountered, that many docs are against insurance companies. This reform is against insurance companies.

Katie, how was your soon-to-be nurse stating this would ruin her? I just ask because I personally haven't heard a medical professional loathe anything that was against insurance companies or resent this kind of change. Jeff, could you shed light on that?

 

[Jeff D.]

Well even before the healthcare government run hospitals, even non-government hospitals, have been drastically cutting back on funding. This bill by making healthcare cheaper may lower the funding even more, it's not a sure thing yet but highly likely. Lower hospital funding means for us as patients less care. Nurses are already being forced to take on too many patients decreasing patient care and with the same pay as usual for a nurse.

Hospitals need to be recieving much more funding than they are so that they can pay for more nurses to come in so we increase patient care. Have you ever pushed the call button and it took a nurse an hour to reach you? It wasn't because they were diddling their thumbs, it's because they are overbooked.

Nurses and doctors are afraid they this bill will only increase their patient load without giving them the money they deserve from care for these patients. This increased patient load will also lead to faster burnout for nurses and so we may lose more nurses in the future than we are now.

This is what nurses are afraid of.

 

[Agent X20]

My brother worked for a large pharmaceutical company in the US for a number of years. He reckoned that anyone (unless they were mega-rich) was only a chronic illness away from bankruptcy or even the gutter.

I've been well-served by the UK system for 50+ years, but I also agree with GoJohnny... no system is perfect, but they can all be improved

 

[whysoserious]

I'm not going to go deeply into my political views, but I will say this.

I consistently worked from the time I was sixteen to late last year (I'm 20 now), when I was too sick to work. Even though I saved and was quite thrifty, I was still not able to afford health insurance. I endured being quite ill for several years and I'm thousands of dollars in debt to hospitals, and the only reason I have health insurance now is because I'm married. I would never, ever want another person to go through what I went through.

I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctor regardless of whether they have insurance or not. I believe that insurance companies shouldn't kick you off your insurance when you get sick. I believe that you should be able to obtain health insurance no matter what pre-existing condition you have. I think America's medical system--like most of our systems--does not operate to serve the population as a whole but rather to serve the elite. I am absolutely one hundred percent in support of every single American having health coverage.

That said, I do not know if this bill is the correct way to go about it. I think there are quite a few good things about it but there are other things I have concerns about.

And as a wise man once said, that's all I got to say about that.

 

[farm]

If I spray paint a turd gold, it looks good right?

More government in our free lives is a BAD thing.
The healthcare of this nation DOES need a reform, BADLY; but we don't need it to be Government ran.

 

[RogerDoger]

More government in our free lives is a BAD thing.
The healthcare of this nation DOES need a reform, BADLY; but we don't need it to be Government ran.

Generally, I agree with the less government thing, but when it comes to healthcare, the more government the better! I trust bureaucrats more than I do corporates...lesser of two evils.




.

 

[pb4]

I don't think most people care for government BUT, look at it this way, in Canada our governement runs the health care show, they make no profits, in the US your insurance companies run the show and make zillions in profits and to boot, seem to offer alot of red-tape, cost you alot of money out of pocket still and in many cases give you limited choices of docs that you can see (in some instances) and still don't end up covering many of the simplist things and make you wait and wait and wait to find out what all you'll be covered for (that alone takes up alot of un-necessary wait time) just for you to find out that nope, they won't cover it...and yet they make profits hand over fist...

I'd say based on the above, it's pretty clear that the way it's been running in the US is a lose-lose situation for everyone but the insurance companies...in Canada, even the homeless people win cuz they get the same coverage and treatment by whichever doctor "they" choose.

It hasn't obviously been working out to well for the majority of USers the way it has been run, I'd say let the government take a shot (be prepared though, it won't be roses over night, since there's alot of mess to clean up in your yard) cuz they can't do any worse than the private insurance companies have been.

I don't pay for colonoscopies or any other tests I get, blood work, stool, you name it, sedation, ect, ect...not a single dime comes out of my pocket AND they give me a bite to eat after my colonoscopies, not a bill in my hand on the way out the door, they say, if you need anything or have any issues call your doc asap...do you get that in the US? No, you get a big ugly bill though, that your insurance *might* pay a little portion of.

Yeah, governement sucks, but US insurance companies take the cake...and eat it too over government.

 

[D Bergy]

I disagree with the free health care label from those under a government system. It also illustrates why it will be wasteful. It is free, so it has no real cost to use it. You can go to the doctor for any or no reason, and incur no cost to yourself, but someone has to pay for it. No one is giving away services, or medicine.

There is no way the U.S. government is going to be as efficient as a private business in any venture, no matter what it is. The government is not profit driven, and does not have limited resources. It is driven by political motives and it is quite obvious they cannot balance books. A corporation operating like the U.S. government with the debt and unfunded liabilities would be bankrupt or would be up on fraud charges. It is a Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained over time.

I asked my Chiropractor today what she thought of the health care bill that passed. She said, "I have not even really considered how it will affect our little business, but since it is likely to bankrupt the country anyway, it really does not matter in the long run if it benefits me or not." I thought that was kind of a surprising answer coming from a Chiropractor.

It will benefit our business, as we process medical claims. I can see the providers throwing up their hands as the government dictates what they can do, and what they will get paid for it. I see a doctor shortage in the future, and we do not have all that many now.

One problem was possibly solved, but many more will come to light in the years to come. The problems could have been resolved any number of ways, but this was not one of the best ways in my opinion.

I hope it works out in spite of it all, because I do not oppose the ability of anyone to get the health care they need. I do oppose more power for the Federal Government over our lives.

the IRS is now predicted to grow larger, as they will have to take money from certain taxpayers, for the "free" health care.

Dan

 

[pb4]

Never said it was free....said I don't pay a penny out of my pocket or get a bill...obviously we pay for it through our taxes, and that's fine by me...I'd most definitely rather pay a little higher taxes and not pay a medical bill...water out of our taps isn't free either, we get water bills every month, yet some people think water is free, when infact it isn't.

Chiropractic care isn't covered under our health plan (as far as I know, not in my province) which is no difference to me anyways cuz I've never had the need for one...physiotherapy is covered since our health care system recognizes it as being a legit practice.

Medicine is another story, it's not under health services, it's under insurance companies like either a public one "Alberta Blue Cross" for example, or private under ones health benefits through employment.

The basic trade off is, everyone pays higher taxes so everyone can be covered under health care, nothing selfish or absurd about that idea...I'm quite thrilled to pay higher taxes (then what people in the US pay) knowing that some poor homeless family can still see a doctor anytime they need to and I'm glad our country is run in that very unselfish way, quite proud actually.

For the most part here in Canada our government run health care has been working quite well, not perfect but realistically what is...so they've decided in our province to stop paying for the people that want sex-change operations, well, good, as far as I'm concerned that is like cosmetic surgery, which is not covered under our health care plan and it shouldn't be...we're talking life essentials, not to try and look prettier or be something we're not. There's limits of course, there has to be otherwise it gets ridiculous, but it's not as limited as the insurance company run health care in the US....I couldn't imagine dropping aprox 1000.00 for a stupid colonoscopy out of my pocket...and to have to do that just seems so 3rd world country to me.

And most definitely, the more you make the more you should get taxed, what's wrong with that, it's a hell of alot better than the rich always getting richer, which is usually what everything always boils down to in humanity these days....sad...I have no problems giving a little extra via taxes for poor/homeless people to get health care but then again I'm not all about "me", reason is, you never know what might happen in your life to cause you to need a helping hand. Karma, put good out, good comes back.

I'm happy that our government has the non-profit power over our health care system, better than some disgusting private insurance company making money hand over fist and all the ridiculous rules they want, denying people left, right and centre at their whim, just cuz they can...and they do.

Bottom line, there's pros and cons to everything, and no system is perfect but ours in Canada I'll take anyday over the current one in the US, hands down.

 

[BWS1982]

This is aimed at a collection of people I'm encountering more so than Dan or Farm, since I know them more:

You know what I keep seeing the people who oppose this claim? "The Government has no right to be involved in this, these are private matters"...Sure, so it's okay if the insurance companies have that power, that pull, the ability to crush or salvage people's lives? Mind you, it's often some ignorant fool behind a desk on a phone with NO medical background-- but rather a calculator, a set of arbitrary guidelines and nonsensical rations on "approvals" to give out-- who has this pull, this godlike ability to cover or deny life-altering/saving procedures or applications? Yes, that's the better choice, the power to give or deny life in those hands. They were running amok in this nation, unchecked, virtually, but that's okay, they deserve to have that power. They're a corporation, so it makes sense to fuse profiting and well-being. It's only served to breed money-driven negligence. At least we can elect government. You want to talk about dictatorship or all-powerful morons? Insurance companies, just ask Kim and Mike.

I just don't understand it. We have seen the sheer destruction insurance companies have dealt, they've decimated lives like a tank rolling through a garden. Mike and Kim? Decimated. Millions of others? Decimated. It's ludicrous. And to state that the government has no authority or right to be involved in "such matters" is hypocritical because prior to this, and even still according to this (this is a hybrid system of sorts, after all), the despicable insurance companies, a FOR PROFIT group of entities, were choosing the fate of someone's entire livelihood. Why do they deserve the right to infiltrate "such matters"? What's the difference? Both of them seem to have limitless power and reach. The insurance companies are corporations. That's the problem, IMO. They will only approve people based on what they felt garnered them the "appropriate" bottom line, and in the process they recklessly obliterated people's lives. They are investing in people's health like they're stocks in a portfolio. That's not what healthcare should be about, we aren't here to help rich A-holes retire that much nicer one day. Pull out the profit, you pull out the need to decline people.

 

[GoJohnnyGo]

I disagree with the free health care label from those under a government system. It also illustrates why it will be wasteful. It is free, so it has no real cost to use it. You can go to the doctor for any or no reason, and incur no cost to yourself, but someone has to pay for it. No one is giving away services, or medicine.

Pretty much par for the course. Nature of the beast no matter what set-up is in place. Emergency rooms are always going to be inundated with G.O.M.E.R.s (Get Out of My Emergency Room).

Hypochondriacs exist everywhere in what I imagine to be roughly demographically proportional numbers. The rest of us have better things to do than spend double-digit hours in a hospital waiting room making up delusions.

I don't go running to the doctor every time I have a runny nose. Most folks by nature are pretty reasonable. At least give those of us in other countries credit for not abusing the system.

At any rate, I hope this issue does not polarize the forum. It's a highly charged issue.

The main thrust should be supporting one another.

 

[DanM]

Its 4 am... I am typing with one had and holding Abby with the other, so I apologize for typos and brevity.

I don't think most people care for government BUT, look at it this way, in Canada our governement runs the health care show, they make no profits, in the US your insurance companies run the show and make zillions in profits...

Lets clarify this point... According to Fortune Magazine, health insurance companies made on average 2.2% profits on revenues. They are 35 out of the 53 industries ranked. They are not ranking in the "zillions" that many claim they are. Profits are necessary under the capitalist model to grow companies and expand services. Here is a list of top health insurance companies and their profits as a percentage of revenues in 2009.



What I think a lot of people are stuck on is the difference between insurance and universal health care.

Insurance by its basic definition is risk management to help pay for large losses by spreading the risk out to a large pool of customers. Wikipedia has a great definition for insurance.

Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss. An insurer is a company selling the insurance; an insured or policyholder is the person or entity buying the insurance. The insurance rate is a factor used to determine the amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage, called the premium. Risk management, the practice of appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of study and practice.

Insurance, heath care, automotive, or otherwise is intended to act as a safety net and reduce the costs associated by catastrophic losses. This is the problem most have with heath insurance. TThey expect it to cover 100% of all expenses.

What many are actually thinking of is universal health care. Under this model, idealistically, everyone has universal access to health care that is prepaid for through either taxes or a public/private system. It is also heavily regulated and managed by government to control costs.



Part of what happened here in the US this past week is that Congress has given millions of Americans access to health insurance programs at an extreme cost to a country crippled with debt. This new entitlement program will not give you free access to health care. You will still have to pay health insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses like you do today.

Secondly, the law forces insurance companies to cover pre-exisisting conditions. While this sounds great, and I am sure everyone in the Crohns world cheers for this, it will actually make insurance and health care more expensive for all. As I pointed out before, insurance, by its nature is risk management. By adding more high risk customers to the pool, the insurers will need to increase premiums to cover this risk. I have not read the 2400 page bill, so the one thing I don't know is if the law also places controls and caps on the premiums for high risk plans. The higher the risk, the premiums.

Next is the cost. It is estimated to cost $940,000,000,000 over the first 10 years... with the insurance program, the most costly part of the bill, not starting until 2014. There are many problems with this.
1. Can anyone here name a single US government program that is or was on or below budget? The only on I can think of is the construction of the Thomas Jefferson building of the Library of Congress. If you are ever in DC, take a tour of this building... it is stunning! Medicare currently has $75 trillion in liabilities. What guarantees do we have that this won't happen to this new law?
2. Funding. This is bill is being largely paid for by taxing the wealthy and profitable health insurance companies mainly for the benefit of the poor. This is known as redistribution of wealth, a concept in Kensyan and Marxian economic theories, hence the ties to socialism. Canada's system is more fair in its funding because it spreads the costs to all tax brackets, not just the rich. Two of my favorite economists (yeah, I am a dork like that) Andrew Mellon and Art Laffer have shown that high taxes, mainly on the rich, do eventually lead to lower tax receipts. Andrew Mellon postulated that the rich protect their wealth by moving it to lower taxed areas. This can be seen in Maryland where they imposed a millionaire tax bracket. After the higher taxes were imposed, there were 30% LESS tax returns in that tax bracket resulting in approximately $100m less in tax receipts. Art Laffer is well known for the Laffer Curve. It states that there is an optimum taxation level that will produce optimum tax receipts. Higher taxes will lead to lower receipts. This can be seen in the tax cuts in 1981. I cannot find the exact numbers, but I think it was a 40% increase in tax receipts. I do not believe in penalizing the rich for their hard work and success.
3. Who watches the watchmen? I cannot find anything in the bill about who is going to police this new bureaucracy for fraud, waste and abuse.
4. I cannot find any wording for a lock box for funds collected until 2014 or future excess funds. Just like with Social Security, the govt, will see the money and use it as it sees fit,
There are more... maybe I will revisit this later.


Health care as a right. I have major problems with this notion. It is a commodity, not a right. If it is a right, it needs to be in the Constitution. And like all rights, our government has shown its unique ability to restrict, control, and abuse them.

The first amendment states that you have the right to free speech and peacefully assemble. You can protest at a major summit or political convention, but only if you first file for permits and other paperwork. Once you have permission, you are restricted to where, when, and for how long. This is typically done under the guise of security.

The second amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Have you ever seen how difficult it is to buy a gun in this country? It is near impossible to buy a hand gun in Chicago. On top of that, the govt restricts where you use it. Again... security and safety.

The fifth amendment protects our property from being used for the public good without just compensation. There was a great family diner I visited in Lake Zurich. IL that was confiscated under the guise of imminent domain so a developer could build lake front condos under the pretense of urban renewal.

You can go line by line in The Constitution and see how many of our basic rights have been restricted, controlled or abused. Health care will be no different.

The compulsory aspect of the bill is another serious problem. This is the first time in US history that Americans are required to purchase a product. If a person does not comply or has insurance that does not meet the standards set the by the Secretary of HHS, a person can be fined $695 for individuals, or a maximum of $2,250 per family or 2.5% of income whichever is higher. This smacks of the government thinking it knows better than its citizens. The bill also calls for 16000 new IRS workers to enforce this mandate.

I'll try to get back later with part two regarding more issues and problems, scope of the US government, what was not included, and what they are doing right. I am exhausted and Abby wants her bottle.

Dan

 

[D Bergy]

The bottom line is there is two ways to control what happens with health care.

One is the government can do what it already has the authority to do, and regulate the insurance companies, and what they can and cannot do.

The other is the government can be the insurance company, which is not what they are there for. They have no more reason for being in the insurance business than the auto business or running a Hot Dog stand.

It has nothing to do with who needs insurance, or what the insurance companies are doing, since all of that is within the governments control now, or can be accommodated without them owning the whole process.

I do not object to the goal, I object to the method of achieving it.

You simply cannot compare Canada's relatively honest government to the relatively corrupt U.S. government.

Our constitutions are not the same either, and Federal Powers were deliberately limited in scope. They are not limited in scope in any way now.

It is a far bigger issue than the one at hand.

Dan

 

[farm]

What I am saying is along the lines with Bergy.
Government needs to reform/regulate the insurance companies and get them to be FAIR and fix the loop holes they so frequently use to deny large claims.

Government does NOT need to be our insurance company. With all the "pork'' they'll throw into this (and there will be pork) it just isn't going to be worth it.

Why don't they just say, "Hey, quit screwing people or we'll shut you down and they can go to X insurance company." Too simple.

Soon you'll be required to have Gov. Insurance, buy Gov. vehicle (GM), and purchase Gov. Gasoline.
Once they get their foot in your door, it just gets worse and worse.

I agree insurance companies are big rip offs and make themselves HARD to deal with; and at times impossible. Government needs to fix that. But the answer is not a take over.

 

[farm]

You can go line by line in The Constitution and see how many of our basic rights have been restricted, controlled or abused. Health care will be no different.

Dan nailed it. If you don't believe this, then why can I carry a gun in NC with NO problems what-so-ever; but can't do this in NY, CA, MA, IL, MT, etc etc.

 

[RogerDoger]

As a matter of fact, I'm satisified with many aspects of Canadian society:
healthcare, banking system, infrastructure, etc. Not super-satisfied, but satisfied.

I'm with buddy who posted above; I don't mind paying taxes if it's for the collective good. A healthier, happier society generates less crime (although scoundrels are still stealing my firewood). I don't mind higher tax rates on higher incomes. You would think that higher taxes on higher incomes would deter immigration to Canada, but many well educated people from around the world continue to pile in.

If you're smart enough to set up a little business and use certain tax deductions, you can minimize your taxes if you want to. But personally, I don't mind paying higher taxes for better government service (in things the government has a right to stick their noses in, like healthcare, education, etc).


.

 

[Creepy Lurker]

Dan nailed it. If you don't believe this, then why can I carry a gun in NC with NO problems what-so-ever; but can't do this in NY, CA, MA, IL, MT, etc etc.

So rather than risk the possibility (or inevitability if you dislike your govt.) of having your right to health care violated, you'd rather not have it as a right at all?

 

[farm]

It's not a right now. It's a commodity you purchase. When government takes over it won't be a right, it will be a requirement.

 

[Lydia]

I think it depends on what province you live in Canada. I have had good and bad experiences with our public healthcare. I only waited 6 months for my ostomy revesal. However I spent 2 days in a hallway once waiting for a hospital bed. So it can be good and bad. I got approved for remicade fairly quick and I was allowed to apply for Alberta blue cross after the fact to get the other 20% covered. So its really not that bad. Sometimes you gotta be a really squeaky wheel to get things done.

I saw my specialist in Edmonton the other week on one days notice and got booked for a scope the next day. Again maybe I am just lucky.

When I first got sick 10 years ago, I had was on a 3 month waiting list to get a scope, but when I got tired of waiting I went to the ER and had it done that day.

Living in a small town I can go to the ER and be seen by a doctor in an hour.

All my surgeries were free, and all the medications that I receive while in hospital are free so I cant complain.

We still need supplemental health insurance for things like glasses, dental, and prescriptions, but we all get the same basic care for free.

 

[phillycrohns]

Just want to throw my 2 cents in here. I agree our "government" is corrupt. But government isn't some humanless entity. At some point we have to take responsibility for how our government is run, because we the people run said government. We are all a part of the process in some way or another. So why do we talk about it like it is some inanimate object?

PEOPLE make the bad decisions in government, PEOPLE in government are corrupt, and it is those PEOPLE that should be held accountable. Government isn't some faceless machine. Rather it is comprised of our fellow middle-class citizens and decision-makers (elites as some call them), many of whom we have put there for our own personal reasons (I want less taxes so I will vote for so-and-so, I do/don't believe in abortion so I will vote for so-and-so). And the REASONS we vote for particular people are reasons that are not always for the greater good of ALL americans, rather they can be quite selfish.

From what I see, we are increasingly a "me" versus "we" society. In some ways it is a by-product of our freedoms and the marketing of "the American" dream. Everyone can have it, we have been told for generations: the white picket fence, the house, the two cars and 2.5 children. But not anymore--that dream is increasingly difficult to attain and that is a fact--see the Economic Mobility Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts for stats.

So where does that leave us? The rich getting richer and many people increasingly (in my personal opinion) assuming a dog-eat-dog mentality as they struggle to stay afloat and attain the American dream. Who cares that my neighbors next door--hard working Americans that follow the rule of law and pay their taxes but can't afford to buy health insurance-- have a child with cancer. I don't want MY insurance or MY taxes affected by THEIR unfortunate situation.

I am of the mindset that what you put out is what you get back. And I "try" to put out kindness and compassion and the sharing of some of our wealth and resources with our neighbors--though it is also important that people also take personal responsiblity for their lives, health and actions. A hand-up not a hand-out is my mentality.

It is up to us to "fix" our corrupt government (i.e. the PEOPLE in it) and make it work for us. We made it what it is. We can fix it or at least try to. Call me the eternal optimist.

There are ways to subsidize universal health care--how about cutting corn subsidies--has anyone seen Food, Inc.? And there are many many more ways. I am not an economist so I don't have the answers. But those answers and ideas are out there. It, however, would require battling many special interest groups, something we seem reluctant to do in this country.

This healthcare bill may not be in the ideal form, but the ideas behind it have good intentions. It is up to us to shape it into the form that we want it to be in the future.

Just my opinion.

Chris

 

[farm]

This healthcare bill may not be in the ideal form, but the ideas behind it have good intentions.

It came about by "good intentions" but then the greedy got into it and it's all to hell now.
Why is there such a big section in this to cover illegal immigrants? ILLEGAL being the key word.
Why not just fix it where the American citizens can afford insurance (subsidized or whatever) and put a cap on the ridiciulous profits the drug companies and insurance companies are making?

 

[DanM]

So where does that leave us? The rich getting richer and many people increasingly (in my personal opinion) assuming a dog-eat-dog mentality as they struggle to stay afloat and attain the American dream. Who cares that my neighbors next door--hard working Americans that follow the rule of law and pay their taxes but can't afford to buy health insurance-- have a child with cancer. I don't want MY insurance or MY taxes affected by THEIR unfortunate situation.

I am of the mindset that what you put out is what you get back. And I "try" to put out kindness and compassion and the sharing of some of our wealth and resources with our neighbors--though it is also important that people also take personal responsiblity for their lives, health and actions. A hand-up not a hand-out is my mentality.

Charity to those less fortunate than us is a key principal in our society. I have no problem offering help to those who need it. Most hospitals have charitable trusts to cover most or all of the costs of care for those who can't afford it. But here is the rub, how do you separate those who are in real need from the freeloaders who make nothing of themselves and use the government as their sole source of income?

 

[DanM]

So rather than risk the possibility (or inevitability if you dislike your govt.) of having your right to health care violated, you'd rather not have it as a right at all?

If you think insurance companies are corrupt, wait until you see what kind of mess the govt will make of things.

 

[Creepy Lurker]

If you think insurance companies are corrupt, wait until you see what kind of mess the govt will make of things.

Corruption exists in both, most likely.

I'm just used to the idea of health care being a human right. The NHS spoils me

 

[Agent X20]

how do you separate those who are in real need from the freeloaders who make nothing of themselves and use the government as their sole source of income?

I worked for a number of years in the Department of Social Security in the UK (as it was then) and the Department of Health, and the NHS and local government.

The truth is that you can't separate the two, I don't believe there is a system on this planet that is capable of eliminating the fraudsters without punishing the truly deserving... though attempts have been made to produce such a system. It just depends how widely you want to cast the net.

Don't know how that helps the debate, but it's just intended as an observation

 

[Agent X20]

I'm just used to the idea of health care being a human right. The NHS spoils me

... and I agree with that

 

[pb4]

Well, like I said, there is no perfect solution, but when it's so obvious you're getting screwed over BIG TIME by your insurance companies, then clearly it's time for a change.

Being Canadian I was thrilled when Obama was voted president, he's exactly who I would have voted for (especially considering the alternative)...if anyone is curious about a canadians point of veiw of american politics, here's mine (can't speak for other canadians of course) but I have to say the majority of your presidents in the last while have been more of a joke than anything, of course it's easy to poke fun at anyone but my god Bush Jr....what an easy target for a good laugh, and thinking how he had all the power he did, it's no wonder you guys have such issues in your country. To be clear I'm not putting the american people down, it's your presidents that I have had a hard time figuring out why anyone would ever give them the power they did by voting them in...of course it always boils down to the lesser of 2 evils when they're running for the job right, still, I've had alot of sympathy over the yrs for the government you guys have had to live with.

Here in AB, when our new premier (Ed Stalmach) made his selections for government members, he chose Ron Liepert to run our health care system, the guy was dismanteling our system like a nut job, very few things that he implimented that I agreed with, the majority of current and his future plans of cut backs were enough to outrage us as a province, Ed Stalmach listened (afterall that's what we hired him to do right) and he did some cabinet shuffeling, good thing cuz Ron Liepert had no clue what he was doing....so I think he's in charge of transport or something of less value than health care.

Point is, you hire them to do a job, everyone was griping about the health care system, now Obama has finally stepped up like no other president ever has (far as I know) and he's trying to make the changes for you but yet, that angers many people too, it's like a lose-lose situation for him...give him a chance, instead of predicting how horrible it's going to be, wait and see, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Babysitting the insurance companies wouldn't likely work, soon as the babysitter turns their head for a minute, we all know what usually happens....the US health care system doesn't need a band-aid, it needs a whole revamping of the system.

BTW, we do have a 2 tierd system in Alberta *thanks Ralph Klein* the only good thing I can say about having a 2 tierd system is, it gives more choice, but that's about it.

 

[farm]

Point is, you hire them to do a job, everyone was griping about the health care system, now Obama has finally stepped up like no other president ever has (far as I know) and he's trying to make the changes for you but yet, that angers many people too, it's like a lose-lose situation for him...give him a chance, instead of predicting how horrible it's going to be, wait and see, you may be pleasantly surprised.

We will no doubt be surprised, but it won't be pleasantly.
Just like he promised to get the troops back home, but they all have extended stays now.

 

[Rob]

Over here in Australia it's like Jed mentioned, but with private health insurance if you need ellective surgery then you move to the front of the que with private health
and private health can be bought for as little as $25 a fortnight here

I feel bad knowing how much you guys are suffering over there and he much it costs
of I had to pay for everything I'd be stuffed

good luck guys hope they gone up with a solution to it for u

 

[pb4]

Just like he promised to get the troops back home, but they all have extended stays now.

I'm sure he's doing the best he can...cleaning up Bush's mess.

 

[Crohn's 35]

Wow I really didnt want to come on here but reading some of these and I am NOT a political type person and find this area kinda gray. As Pb4 pointed out in the Ontario system we pay through our taxes, the more you make the percentage you pay. It however is way less than what the Americans pay. I feel for them and as Pb4 says Obama is I think gonna come through after cleaning up year of both Bush's messes.

My husband's company has great insurance companies but we pay a premium to the level of %100 or less, depending on your needs. Yes the insurance make money but I am just grateful for having insurance and hospital coverage and semi private. I am happy where I am and the help that I get. Tests take a little longer but you learn as you go which ones are a waste of time, not to mention what they do to us down the road with xrays. We also have travel grants if we get flown out to a bigger city, like Toronto or Winnipeg. Takes 3 months but we live in the sticks. I don't complain. I try not to, stress isnt good for anyone.

 

[pb4]

I was always under the impression that americans pay waaaaaaaaay less in taxes compared to canadians, it's all I've ever heard....I've also heard they get more tax breaks too, like their mortgages, we only get a tax break on mortgages if it's propery we rent out (from the best of my knowledge) but our own mortgages for the home we live in there is no tax break...no tax break for first time homebuyers either (I believe).

I've always heard that we pay higher taxes in Canada and the cost of living is much higher too, we don't get subway footlongs for 4$ like in the states for example.

 

[Cookie]

Wow. I really didn't want to get involved in this one either, because it is such a sensitive and difficult subject. I truly understand both sides of the argument and I appreciate all of the opinions of everyone here. Personally I think our country is in desperate need of health care reform but I don't think this bill was quite the way to go. That being said, I just want to point out that I have had insurance through 3 different providers since I have been with my company (and since my dx) and I can honestly say that I have no complaints. Really. I have a $20 co-pay, pay between $21-75/month for my meds (depending on what I'm taking), and paid an out-of-pocket cost of $1000 for my surgeries. I paid nothing for remicade. And the money that I do spend is tax deductible through a cafeteria plan which my employer matches up to $500/year. I pay around $90/month for my portion of my premium.

My mother is on Medicaid and my father is on Medicare. They pay close to $500/month for supplemental insurance (and trust me, they can not afford it!), without which they would be in a huge world of hurt. If they had to rely on the coverage they get from medicare/medicaid alone, there is no way they could make it. They are both seriously ill. It is hard for me to watch them struggle with the added expense of supplemental insurance, but they need it because what the government gives them is insufficient. That scares me.

 

[pb4]

It varies in Canada too, we have insurance through my husbands job, we don't pay anything for it, his employer covers it, but it's limited to 80% on most things like dental and RX and a flat rate of 300.00 a yr for eye care, we pay any extra that isn't covered, for example, eye care ends up costing 400.00 for the frames desired and the lense RX, we pay the extra 100.00, but we don't pay any monthly cost as hubby's employer covers all of that.

From my understanding, in Saskatchewan the government covers remicade 100%, no insurance needed for remicade...every province varies.

 

[kenny]

Actually in Canada it is Amazing that we get what we do. With such a small population base you would expect the /unit cost to be much much higher. But I really would not want to see our system change.

But looking at the history of our system it came in bits and pieces growing out of a movement started during the Great Depression. It did not come overnight with a bill that affected 100's of millions. It came in dribs and drabs with federal support to the provinces. And it came from a socialist movement out of the farm country in central Canada.

People in civilized nations should at least have some social help during illness with a tiered insurance system but I think the US already had that to some degree did it not? does this new bill expand on the existing system or is it trying to rewrite history?

 

[katiesue1506]

I honestly think there are some people out there who just oppose anything Obama does. I never would have voted for him (I wanted Hillary) but I think people really need to realize that the politicians are people too. Washington and our country are so critical and judgemental, but ya know what... in politics no matter what you do, you are gonna piss a lot of people off. I really think they tried to do the best for a majority of the people here.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think this bill is the answer to our problems, but its a step in the right direction. Its a step towards helping the majority. If we wanna talk about what this country was founded on, it was serving the majority... I mean that IS what democracy is about.

I personally hate that whenever anything is done everyone runs to the constitution and says "hey look, I can't have that!!" Well guess what, societies change, attitudes change, technology changes... can we really realistically expect a document written in the 1770s to cater all the needs to a society in the 2000s? I have this same argument with the bible (GASP SACRELIGIOUS). I believe our laws and bills and statutes all have to be dynamic and flexible. People just aren't comfortable with change... but in this case, we have to change.

BTW... my tone in this probably sounds angry, but I'm not LOL... I have to write this disclaimer because I don't want people hating me.

 

[RogerDoger]

And it came from a socialist movement out of the farm country in central Canada.

Canadian healthcare came from Agent Bauer's grandpa!

Sutherland was born in London, England, the son of Donald Sutherland and Shirley Douglas, both of whom are successful Canadian actors. He has Scottish ancestry from both parents and is the grandson of Canadian politician Tommy Douglas, who brought universal health care to Canada.




.

 

[5 iron]

Regardless of the size of the country, it can be done...in Canada our health care varies from province to province, some provinces have it better than others, but bottom line is everyone is covered, and I'll take that over the US health care system any day. The US should be so lucky if they finally get universal health care, there are pros and cons to everything but I'll tell you this, I've heard alot more horror stories about things that happen in the US health care system compared to Canada...and they are horror stories that people have paid out of pocket to have happen to them...dark ages or what?

One other major difference between universal health care vs private, there is no discrimination in regards to those that have money getting better service (or getting any service period) everyone gets the same service regardless if they're rich or homeless.

If it's so good why did Danny Williams come to USA for his heart surgery,when the chips are really down folks around the world look to the us.

 

[5 iron]

Here is another concern of mine, and Thomas Jefferson's for that matter.

A wise man once said:
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls of those who live under tyranny."-- Thomas Jefferson

We are not too far from that scenario today.

Very prophetic.

Dan

Well said Bergy,it scares me there are people willing to give up freedom for something free,gov tit birth to death, thats not the America i grew up in.

 

[pb4]

If it's so good why did Danny Williams come to USA for his heart surgery,when the chips are really down folks around the world look to the us.

Because, Danny Williams is an idiot and likes to spend fricken tax payers money....he could have easily had the procedure done here in Canada, just because he didn't isn't a reflection that our government run health care isn't any good, it's a reflection that he's a typical idiot politician....that's why.

 

[pb4]

Well said Bergy,it scares me there are people willing to give up freedom for something free,gov tit birth to death, thats not the America i grew up in.

No, the America you've grown up in is one where insurance companies make money hand over fist at the risk of your health, and only those with money can get medical help that they need, very selfish. And your health care run by the government would not likely be "free" it isn't in Canada, we pay higher taxes for what we get and it's well worth it.

 

[Entchen]

I appreciate you asking for this info, Shadycat!

I thought I'd give you the wait times for the tests I've had done since November (at least, the ones I can remember off the top of my head!). I'm not sure which are good / normal / bad compared to what you get in the US, but maybe you can use this info to help in forming your judgment.

Head CT (because of nausea, headaches, which we didn't know was Crohn's): 4 days

Blood work: Walk-in and wait ~15 minutes, or book an appointment for a day of your choosing.

Upper and Lower GI: ~3 weeks

Walk-in clinic doctor: 30 mins to 4 hours (but the 4 hours was during H1N1). Average 60 - 90 minutes.

Abdomen ultrasound: 3.5 months

Colonoscopy: 3.5 months (and that's with the "urgent" request) - I haven't actually had this one yet, but they gave me the date for it yesterday.

Ultrasound / mammogram: 1 week (and subsequent biopsy -- 15 minutes)

I should add, though, that I should have gone to Emergency once or twice because of my stomach pain, but made the choice not to because of the possibility of so many hours of waiting in an uncomfortable chair -- I've discovered that sitting is the WORST for Crohn's stomach pain.

Fees for all visits, testing, etc.: 0 -- it's covered by Alberta insurance.

If you are in the hospital, all medications are covered. Once you are out, however, you need to use your provincial drug plan / work or private insurance / pay to get meds. I am spoiled right now and have health care coverage through my work that includes all prescription meds (and dental, vision care and correction, nutritionist, massage therapy, acupuncture, etc.), but after I'm laid off in June, if I have a period of not having any work, I'll be able to fill you in on drug costs in Canada, too.

I will also say that I was surprised when I interviewed at a place in the US to learn that 30% of my salary would go toward health insurance. When they boasted of having a great insurance plan, I'd automatically assumed it was in addition to salary.

 

[BWS1982]

I want to start this post by saying I'm shocked that I saw people who generally have "conservative" views actually admit that something needed to be done about the insurance companies. I have yet to see that, and it makes me happy that I see most of us stating things of that nature. Before, I remember Bergy alluding to the system being broken, but now, I at least see people acknowledging the insurance industry itself is out of control, which is a relief. I have not seen that yet from "the other side" which has been a source of frustration, I cannot understand why anybody would want the status quo, so there is common ground.

I'm totally lost though, on a few other views (gov tit? what?), the same as always when it's come to topics like this over the last couple years. Utterly lost, as in completely disconnected, another wavelength. I'm still not seeing any answers to explain how in God's name any "freedoms" of any kind are being infringed upon. The freedom of what, to prevent other people, your countrymen, from going to the doctor? The freedom to retain your money as you see fit? (sorry, you already pay taxes, with representation, mind you, so avoiding "chipping in" isn't a right, either)...I missed that in Constitutional studies. The freedom to only want portions of our lives helped by the gov? Pick and choose? How are people discerning socialized healthcare from socialized police protection? They're both for the safety and well-being of society.

Hey, our house is burning down, let's just privatize all the Fire Departments, it's not the government's business to help save us. Hey, we had a riot start up 2 blocks away, let's form a militia and take to the streets, that's a private matter and we don't want more government. I don't see anybody pushing for corporate-based police instead of civil/municipal ones. I don't see people whining when 911 responds to an emergency when a school or nursing home catches fire. Those are ALL socialized facets in society now, and have been. Public schools, libraries, etc... How about we just go back to log cabins, yellow fever and penny candy, so we can have those militias I spoke of, then there's less government involved, as their reach is just too intrusive as it is. (see why parts of the constitution need amendments? As Katie said, some of it has been relegated to obsolescence, hence the "amendments.") Hell, let's eliminate ALL gov, so we can experience the highest form of "freedom"...some good old fashioned anarchy. It's just healthcare reform, nobody said we can't smile or feel joy.

But really, we have centralized and socialized assets for these things for a reason, fire protection, police, military, etc... It's safety and security for the citizens of the nation, which is what health is. It's NO different, which is why other nations caught on to this simplistic concept that gets staunch opposition here, for some whimsical reason. They're a step ahead, and feeling sorry for us, and yet have a fraction of the complaints all the while. Go figure. As I said previously, the insurance industry is TOO profit driven, it shouldn't be about a business out to make money, we have enough of those. They're focusing on a bottom line and sacrificing people's livelihoods in the process, that combo is asinine. This should be exempt from that model, just like fire departments and the likes.

To that, I still retain my "HUH?!?" status. I'm also seeing some fallacies and misconceptions. That's why so many do not like this, I believe (well, that and some people just hate Obama, so they inherently hate anything he touches or supports). I honestly believe confusion is part of the problem. For example, the bill does NOT cover illegal aliens here, they are explicitly listed as a portion/percentage (estimated) of the population that is planned to still NOT have coverage:

When all is said and done, the majority of working-age Americans and their families will still have employer-sponsored coverage, as they do now. But the number of uninsured will drop by more than half. Illegal immigrants would account for more than one-third of the remaining 23 million people without coverage.

I also want to refer again to this: http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...hy-people-go-bankrupt?mod=bb-checking_savings

Can nobody refute that jaw-dropping fact as reason enough there is a problem? NUMBER ONE, that's staggering. If that's not a wake-up call, let's just give up right now and surrender to North Korea.

Where is this loss of freedom? The first product people are forced to purchase? I think it is ridiculous not to even HAVE this product, firstly. It's one of the dumbest things to do, live without health, life or car insurance of sorts. Second, there are subsidies being planned. The Gov is NOT forcing people to fork over money if they can't afford it ("affording" it is subjective, yes). Again, this goes back to misinformation. There would be more support under this if there had been fewer slams coming from Republican talk show hosts and loud mouthed politicians ("Baby killer"??? Seriously?), but hey, they got what they wanted out of the smearing: mass confusion. I hope they're happy (maybe not now, since they're screaming comments like hecklers WHILE IN CONGRESS, shows their maturity and tact). Sucks to be them, though, I feel bad for anyone that miserable, that they have to lie and cheat their way through opposition to a charitable and selfless movement. That's pretty damn low.

This is not the gov becoming the insurance company, they are providing an alternative/supplement TO the insurance companies. In fact, most people will remain with the plans they have, private insurance isn't going anywhere, they're just going to have "competition" for once, along with more stringent guidelines on when to raise premiums and deny people (that's good for EVERYONE, except them). It's also not "perfect" in my opinion, as there is no perfect system, but it's putting shattered pieces back into form after they went all over the place over the years.

Obama has rectified a huge portion of a catastrophe that was left in a wake of aftermath from that dumb goon with the intellect of a pencil eraser. He's been in office barely over a year and already accomplished something that entire administrations have failed at doing over years of spanned time. He ran on that change, he's making that change. He has not lied nor fell through on that, and the fact that opposing forces label him as either useless or changing things too much means "success" was futile in these peoples' minds anyways. Whether people dislike it or not (sure, one can hate being compassionate, that's each person's prerogative), he has brought healthcare to people who either don't have it at all, or will lose it because they have something like IBD.

It's sad I continue to see people care more about how much the national debt is than how many millions of lives are annihilated by a system so faulty, it's the number one cause people go bankrupt and it's the last of its kind in the industrialized world. Again, what does the national debt matter if the country's actual population goes bankrupt before it can help pay off debt.

 

[RogerDoger]

If it's so good why did Danny Williams come to USA for his heart surgery,when the chips are really down folks around the world look to the us.

If you can afford it.


Danny Williams is not a typical Canadian; he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As most filthy rich people do, they go to America or where ever for gold-plated healthcare, because they can afford THE BEST, which is out of reach for most Americans too.

"As the principal owner, he sold the telecommunications portion of the business for $76 million dollars in April 2000 to "GT Group Telecom Inc." (who were bought by Bell Canada Inc. in 2006). Then 8 months later the cable TV portion of Cable Atlantic was sold to Rogers Cable Inc. for $152 million in November 2000. This sale plus the success of his extensive law practice gave him the nickname of "Danny Millions" during the early 2000s."

This thread is about the best healthcare system for the average citizen, not the uber rich.

 

[farm]

.This is not the gov becoming the insurance company, they are providing an alternative/supplement TO the insurance companies.

Bens, this simply isn't true. Once your private insurance becomes too high priced, or doesn't cover all you want to cover, you can NOT change to another private insurance, you MUST accept the Gov. plan.

 

[katiesue1506]

That doesn't even make sense to me farm... if private insurance companies statrted not covering things and pricing things too high, everyone would go to gov't run healthcare because it would be in their best interest at that point. Then all the private insurance companies would close up shop due to lack of business. It is in the private insurance companies best interests to play nicely with the gov't because they honestly can't compete with them. Its simple economics with supply and demand.

 

[Agent X20]

when the chips are really down folks around the world look to the us.

Thanks for speaking up on behalf of "the rest of the world"... but I can assure you it's really not the case

 

[Crohn's 35]

Ummm, this is just my opinion but I think this thread should be moved to the lounge... it's gonna start getting ugly. Seams are gonna start busting. Most political things do.

 

[farm]

In the bill it states that if you don't have "adequate" coverage you will incur a fine up to 2.5% of your AGI. Who determines if your coverage is enough? The I.R.S..
So you don't even have the "brains" to determine if you have enough or adequate coverage, according to the Government.

 

[farm]

That doesn't even make sense to me farm... if private insurance companies statrted not covering things and pricing things too high, everyone would go to gov't run healthcare because it would be in their best interest at that point. Then all the private insurance companies would close up shop due to lack of business. It is in the private insurance companies best interests to play nicely with the gov't because they honestly can't compete with them. Its simple economics with supply and demand.

Wheather it makes sense or not, look under the "Autoenrollment" section of the bill.

 

[farm]

Pen I don't think it will get out of hand. I'm very open minded.
Here are my main points.
1. Healthcare/insurance NEEDS reform.
2. Government should reform it.
3. Government should NOT become an insurance company.
4. In my opinion (we all know what that's worth) Medicare should be vamped up to become the national healtcare for people who can't afford any of it, can only afford so much, etc. Make Medicare work for the people.
5. Any Health plan SHOULD include dental and vision for obvious reasons.

 

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by 5 iron
when the chips are really down folks around the world look to the us.

Thanks for speaking up on behalf of "the rest of the world"... but I can assure you it's really not the case

Yeah I actually get scared whenever I see our country emulating the US.

 

[DanM]

In the bill it states that if you don't have "adequate" coverage you will incur a fine up to 2.5% of your AGI. Who determines if your coverage is enough? The I.R.S..
So you don't even have the "brains" to determine if you have enough or adequate coverage, according to the Government.

Actually, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will determine whether your insurance is adequate. The IRS is simply the enforcer. The 2700 page bill delegates most of the decision and policy making to HHS. This will undoubtedly lead to thousands of additional pages of bureaucracy and red tape.

Dan

 

[fenway1971]

That doesn't even make sense to me farm... if private insurance companies statrted not covering things and pricing things too high, everyone would go to gov't run healthcare because it would be in their best interest at that point. Then all the private insurance companies would close up shop due to lack of business. It is in the private insurance companies best interests to play nicely with the gov't because they honestly can't compete with them. Its simple economics with supply and demand.

Hi all. Been away but I enjoy debating topics like these.

Not to pick on you, Katie, but your comment makes no sense. Let me explain.

Everyone says that it's the insurance company's fault. I completely disagree. It's the costs of the system that are at fault. When we get sick or ill, someone has to pay.

Those bills are currently paid for by all of us whether directly or buy purchasing an insurance policy. If insurance didn't exist, we'd all scream for doctors and hospitals to stop charging us so much. It's like when our cars break down and we have to get them fixed. We shop for the best deal and for the mechanic who won't screw us.

In healthcare, we don't shop! We might look for a better doctor, but when was last time you comparison shopped for doctors based on which cost more (maybe because one is better) or for colonoscopy tests? I've never done it. I just do what doc says.

Because insurance companies - the ones paying the bills - have only incentive to see costs go down, they do what any rational being would do. Oversee whether tests are necessary (to cut wasteful tests), restrict which doctors we can see or not see (to make sure they have agreed upon pricing deals with them) or limit which drugs we can take (again to make sure they have agreed upon pricing).

Having the government (which is just our own money recycled as tax dollars) takeover that job will only lead to them doing the same thing as insurers. But, those decisions will be made by individuals who are likely less educated and with no personal economic incentives to find ways to be more efficient. It'll only lead to higher costs, higher taxes or worse ... long lines or long waits like I've heard about in Canada and UK. Claiming that the government will pay offends me. It's basically saying that those of us who contribute more tax dollars end up paying the bill without any control over how my money is being spent.

The reason the costs are so high is that doctors, hospitals run so many tests to protect themselves from being sued. Nowhere in this legislation is this simple fix. It was proposed but denied probably because the lawyer lobby is a huge contributor to the Democratic party. Think John Edwards.

This simple fix would reduce costs. Doctors wouldn't have to run so many tests, costs would go down. Insurance premiums would fall.

Just my 2 cents.

Don't pick on insurance companies. Let's focus on healthcare costs.

Personally - we should all have access to care. A safety net for catastrophic costs - not a social plan that pays for routine doctor visits. My tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for someone to go to an emergency room because their nose is runny and they need benadryl. But, I'd gladly consider having my tax dollars help defray costs for someone who is suddenly faced with massive bills because they got unlucky in what genetics they were dealt with. I'd only do it if we fixed the system and the focus was on reducing costs. The current legislation will only increase costs or force insurers into bankruptcy which will only then cause government to bail out with future tax dollar increases.

Sorry - I'm just very upset and needed to vent.

 

[whysoserious]

Ummm, this is just my opinion but I think this thread should be moved to the lounge... it's gonna start getting ugly. Seams are gonna start busting. Most political things do.

I agree. My motto is never talk politics with your friends.

 

[Crohn's 35]

I agree wss... I was taught in a managing a hairstyling salon that, religion, income and politics should never be discussed in business or with clients. If caught it was an automatic dismissal. I can see things getting heated.

 

[Agent X20]

I don't see why it should go into the lounge if it's not specifically adult content. It's a genuinely interesting thread and I won't be able to follow it in the lounge... no intention of joining. If I find I'm offended in some way I'll just stop reading it.

The healthcare aspect is something that's specifically relevant to the forum, and due to the nature of it, it just can't be separated from politics... like it or not

 

[farm]

Because insurance companies - the ones paying the bills - have only incentive to see costs go down, they do what any rational being would do. Oversee whether tests are necessary (to cut wasteful tests), restrict which doctors we can see or not see (to make sure they have agreed upon pricing deals with them) or limit which drugs we can take (again to make sure they have agreed upon pricing).

Having the government (which is just our own money recycled as tax dollars) takeover that job will only lead to them doing the same thing as insurers. But, those decisions will be made by individuals who are likely less educated and with no personal economic incentives to find ways to be more efficient. It'll only lead to higher costs, higher taxes or worse ... long lines or long waits like I've heard about in Canada and UK. Claiming that the government will pay offends me. It's basically saying that those of us who contribute more tax dollars end up paying the bill without any control over how my money is being spent.

Also according to the Bill, once the Gov. Insurance denies you there is NO appeal. At least you CAN appeal your private insurance company.

 

[Cookie]

I agree with AgentX. I have learned a lot from this thread. Please don't move it to the lounge.

Fenway, you have made a lot of great points, but tort reform is only a starting point. It will not solve all of the problems with our current health care system. But I think that is the way it needs to be approached. Legislation needs to be passed in pieces...it needs to be a work in progress, amendable to unintended consequences. Let's get the low hanging grapes and take it from there. For those who are in support of this bill...do you even know what is all included in this giant piece of legislation? No, you don't. And neither do I. And it's damn near impossible to find out and THAT's what concerns me more than anything. The latest polls show that less than 40% of Americans support this legislation, yet the democrats in congress were insistent on getting it passed, with total disregard of the opinions of those they are supposed to represent. THAT's what has me ticked off (not that I am selfish and don't care about people without health care!). And maybe that is also why Nancy Pelosi has an 11% approval rating.

 

[Cookie]

BTW, if that sounded like a little bit of a rant, it wasn't intended to. I am just angry over this piece of legislation. I started this thread several months ago because I am truly interested in understanding how health care works in other countries and figuring out a way that we can make things better here. I don't feel like this bill is going to do that. And a few have said that they are angry because there are people who oppose this bill for the sake of opposing it. On the flip side, you can't just pass a crappy, willy- nilly, thrown together piece of legislation for the sake of "getting it done" either.

 

[farm]

I'm sure he's doing the best he can...cleaning up Bush's mess.

If the best he can do is repeal bills that call for the troops to come home, then he needs to be impeached.

It's not just Bush's mess, it ours now. I personally have 3 nephews in the Army right now, 2 in Afgan that DESERVE to come home. 1 has 2 kids now. He's seen one of them for a week.

 

[fenway1971]

Fenway, you have made a lot of great points, but tort reform is only a starting point. It will not solve all of the problems with our current health care system. But I think that is the way it needs to be approached. Legislation needs to be passed in pieces...it needs to be a work in progress, amendable to unintended consequences.

I agree with you.

 

[pb4]

If the best he can do is repeal bills that call for the troops to come home, then he needs to be impeached.

It's not just Bush's mess, it ours now. I personally have 3 nephews in the Army right now, 2 in Afgan that DESERVE to come home. 1 has 2 kids now. He's seen one of them for a week.

Well, look at it this way, I am no longer laughing my head off at the US now that you have an actual man acting as president, a knowledgable, intelligent, sophisticated man....don't even know the last time you had a president like that (that wasn't shamefully "dipping" into someone else other than the first lady).

You do realise that it's a big reflection on your country depending on who your president is? When you have joke after joke running it, it makes it pretty impossible for the rest of the world to have any respect for your country and that goes for ALL countries that have useless, war mongering presidents/prime ministers running their countries....now I'm not laughing at the US anymore.

You can thank the Bush's for the war issues, it's your mess now but that's all thanks to any war mongering president(s). Oh and by the way, plenty of Canadians and other country men around the world have died in this current war, thanks to Bush....many of whom left behind pregnant wives and they never got to live to see their new babies comming into the world.

Be grateful you finally have a president that is taking action to better all americans lives, starting with healthcare reform, his intentions are for everyone to get equal and adaquate medical care, not just the rich or those that can afford to pay for every test, surgery and doc appointments...obviously if he cares enough to do that then his intentions are good, not evil...can you say that about any other past president you've had? No, otherwise your healthcare wouldn't have been what is was.

 

[RogerDoger]

Americans and Canadians are very similar in their lifestyle habits
(diet, exercise, etc.). So, if you want to determine which works
better, a public or a private healthcare system, maybe it would help to
look at average life expectancies between the two countries.

Canada: 80.7
USA: 78.2 (just behind Cuba at 78.3)

Another measure may be infant mortality rates.

Canada: 4.8 deaths /1000 live births
USA: 6.3 deaths / 1000 live births (Cuba is 5.1)


Canadians, who live in this cold, dark, frozen world, also suffer much greater Vitamin D deficiencies than Americans, many of whom live in sunny climes; Canadians should be sicker than Americans.
.

 

[BWS1982]

The troops being away is another topic altogether, I wouldn't want to go into that as it's not germane to the topic (IMO), but yes, they should be brought back as fast as feasibly possible (Generals on the ground, like General McChrystal, help advise to this motion). Again, that's a whole other topic, and I'm sure we have a lot to say on it, so I think it best not to sidetrack this topic. I hope for the safe return of every brave man and woman over there, Farm, ASAP. You have a heroic heritage/family.

I don't see things getting disrespectful, I think we're all aware each of us is passionate about this topic for a reason. I believe it's properly placed in Anything Goes as is. We each have our own reasoning, none of us flipped a coin and chose heads or tails on supporting/fighting this legislation. I myself may seem like I hold Obama as a messiah, though I can assure you, there are a couple things that disappoint me in his choices at times. My issue is, with what I've experienced, I keep feeling like so many of us are at rock bottom, in a hole, and people seem to scream with malice that they want us to keep digging deeper as the rest of us are begging to climb up--hence my own stance and zeal.

I have not read the actual several thousand page bill, that's not available to me, what I have read are articles upon articles detailing each aspect. Sure, parts could be left out, for whatever reason, so no, I haven't seen every word in this legislation, I am not privy to that "version". But, I am not haphazardly supporting this reform just because either. I said in posts above why I support it, so I won't reiterate that. We are comprised of the bliss and sorrow that forged us, as I like to say.

I had seen recently (not here, on places like facebook, blogs, etc..and at my job), cold-hearted people against this (or any) reform, that state everything should remain the way it was and that nothing was broken. How dare they assume familiarity with something they have not been involved with, by their own admission even. They claim health is a personal matter, that it's each person's burden to bear. I'm thankful I don't really see that here, that people are acknowledging change is needed.

A while back I said if things don't change, out of necessity, I will have to flee the US. It will get to a point where Crohn's could bankrupt me if I stay. That hasn't changed, that could happen to many of us here, people with cancer or other chronic/terminal issues too, not just us. I'd be fine in any other country with this curse, but here, I'm paying thousands every few months, WITH insurance. I hate how in this great nation, healthcare is so socially and economically divisive. The elites don't have any worries, while the middle and lower classes often have to save up for maintenance drugs and copays, and make payment plans to afford colonoscopies? Yes, Fenway has a GREAT point, costs need to go down, because it is useless to argue about who should pay for something if the act of paying for it is atrocious and sickening in the first place. I hate how medicine is so profit-driven, and so many solutions are monopolies within their realms.

I've long since said that too, however, I think many of the times we get a barrage of tests it's because medicine isn't the science we would like it to be. How many of us have anomalies with our ailments, sheer mysteries that none can solve?...We often can't seem to get a diagnosis even when they are doing tests that are "excessive" or seem unneeded...sometimes the tests are inconclusive or useless for one, but hit the bullseye on a "seemingly" identical case.

As far as health insurance companies raising rates now, this bill is going to help that, not hurt it (although they'll want to raise them, they will have a harder time, not easier time, with this). Arbitrary rate hikes and spontaneous drops/denials will be curbed (should be, per the legislation). So, when you say Farm, you're worried about the insurance companies making things too unaffordable, I can't see how that would play out. This is initiating a crackdown on such practices, not opening the floodgates to it. They will feel pressure, but won't be able to just slap people with premium hikes, which is what they already do. Fenway, I also don't get how the insurance companies are "educated" in anything other than endeavors of profits. It's fine if they are experts in shareholder pleasure, but when it comes to medicine?...they make some of the most irrational, callous and ignorant choices with the power they wield. They have their thumbs over triggers to which they know nothing about. We see this in rants here on the forum every couple days, a new low is sunken to in incompetence. Also to add, yes, I have had to shop for doctors. I had to leave a GI who was doing fine out of financial necessity. So yes, some of us shop around for them out of lack of choice.

This bill, in my belief (obviously) is the start of climbing out of that hole, at rock bottom. The insurance companies seem rather content in giving us shovels to dig deeper, though, because that helps their bottom lines. Health shouldn't be a business, just as I said, it's no different than police protection or fire protection: it's about safety and security, an inherent right I think we all deserve no matter who we were born into.

 

[BWS1982]

Maybe this could help, to clarify ambiguities and to aid some of the non-Americans in seeing the topic laid out, a summary: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

• COMING SOON:

Roughly a third of people in their 20s are uninsured, so allowing young adults to remain on their parents' plans until 26 would be a significant new option for families.

Adult children would not be able to stay on a parental plan if they had access to employer coverage of their own. But they could get married and still be covered. (Grandkids, however, would not qualify.) Regulations will clarify to what degree young adults have to be financially dependent on their parents.

Other reforms starting this year would prevent insurers from canceling the policies of people who get sick, from denying coverage to children with medical problems, and from putting lifetime dollar limits on a policy.

These changes will spread risks more broadly, but they're also likely to nudge insurance premiums somewhat higher.

Obama's plan also includes an important new program for the most vulnerable: uninsured people who can't get coverage because of major medical problems. It's intended to provide an umbrella of protection until the broad expansion of coverage takes effect in 2014.

The government will pump money into high-risk insurance pools in the states, making coverage available for people in frail health who have been uninsured for at least six months. The premiums could still be a stretch, but for people who need continuing medical attention, it could make a dramatic difference.

"For people who have not been able to get anything, who have expensive chronic illnesses or other conditions, it could be a lifesaver," said Friedholm.

There is a catch, however. The $5 billion Obama has allocated for the program is unlikely to last until 2014. In fact, government experts have projected it could run out next year.

Among seniors, the plan will create both winners and losers. On the plus side, it gradually closes the dreaded "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gap, improves preventive care and puts a new emphasis on trying to keep seniors struggling with chronic diseases in better overall health.

But it also cuts funding for popular private insurance plans offered through the Medicare Advantage program. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for the plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs. That's been possible because the government pays the plans about 13 percent more than it costs to cover seniors in traditional Medicare. As the payments are scaled back, it could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage.

"It's not all black and white; sometimes it's gray," said James Firman, president of the National Council on the Aging. "Overall we think this plan is very good, and will provide some significant benefits for seniors. There will be some pain among some people in Medicare Advantage plans."

The prescription coverage gap will be totally closed in 2020. At that point, seniors will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in, dropping their copayments to 5 percent.

• COMING LATER:

The real transformation of America's health insurance system won't take place until 2014.

Four breathtaking changes will happen simultaneously:

• Insurers will be required to take all applicants. They won't be able to turn down people in poor health, or charge them more.

• States will set up new insurance supermarkets for small businesses and people buying their own coverage, pooling together to get the kind of purchasing clout government workers have now.

• Most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own. Those who refuse will face fines from the IRS.

• Tax credits to help pay for premiums will start flowing to middle-class working families, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low income people. Households making up to four times the poverty level — about $88,000 for a family of four_ will be eligible for assistance. But the most generous aid — including help with copayments and deductibles — will be for those on the lower-to-middle rungs of the income scale.

As you can see, it doesn't appear to be perfect for all, and will have challenges (notice it says premiums will "likely be nudged higher" but that's what they already do, in time, arbitrary hikes won't be allowed, at least "pre-existing condition" will be a "non-existing term" in 90 days), but many of us see it as "improvement" defined, hence its purpose. I don't even like all of it 100%, but, I clamor for the sum of the parts, despite certain parts being imperfect.

 

[farm]

So, when you say Farm, you're worried about the insurance companies making things too unaffordable, I can't see how that would play out

I didn't say that. I said that currently if your insurance company went up or you needed more coverage or any other reason you chose to leave your 'original' insurance company, you have no choice but to receive the Gov. insurance at that time.

 

[BWS1982]

Before, there would be no choice. I'm of the thought that one choice is better than none. I don't consider COBRA a choice, I consider it a failed and expensive bandaid.

edit: Farm, I hope to show you some benefit will come of this to you personally (beyond the pre-existing condition elimination), so I don't know if any of this sounds beneficial to you (maybe for Will one day? It would be great if he could be under your job's insurance that much longer should the need arise?)

PROTECT AMERICANS FROM INSURANCE COMPANY ABUSES
• You will never be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions
• You will never be hit with arbitrary premium hikes
• You will never see your coverage revoked just when you get sick or injured
• You will never face unlimited out-of-pocket expenses for your care

GUARANTEE AFFORDABLE CHOICES
• If you like your current doctor and you like your current plan, you keep them
• Uninsured individuals and small business owners will become part of a powerful negotiating
pool, just like members of Congress and other federal employees, lowering prices and
increasing choice
• Struggling middle-class families will receive a tax credit to make coverage even more
affordable – the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history

REDUCE THE COST OF CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES, BUSINESSES
AND THE GOVERNMENT
• We’ll save billions of dollars every year by reducing waste and abuse in our current system
• We’ll save and create millions of jobs, raise wages and strengthen the economy
• We’ll cut the deficit by nearly $1 trillion over two decades

 

[fenway1971]

Benson,
Good points you make. My comment on "educated" folks was that private enterprises have the ability to offer incentive compensation packages to attract and recruit brighter, more entrepreneurial people. Government doesn't. There's no incentive for the government to be more efficient or innovate because people just get paid salaries and are not usually held accountable.

I disagree with you that the legislation is good because it will curb arbitrary rate hikes and drops/denials in coverage. I think that makes it bad. Here's why:

1. Before this legislation, rates were already regulated by states. Now the federal government can cap costs. But, if insurers can't raise prices to cover their costs, this will only lead to further cuts in benefits or worse, insurance company bankruptcies. Bankruptcies will mean people will lose jobs and potential bailouts (ie higher taxes).

2. Insurance, by its nature, is discriminatory. Unhealthy people cost more...healthy people cost less. By forcing insurers to take unhealthy people, we should allow them to charge more. Otherwise they'll go bankrupt or reduce services. This is the root of the debate on insurance: unhealthy people buy insurance, healthy ones tend not to. So, there has to be a mechanism to force healthy people to buy insurance (or pay a tax). Depending on how this works out - healthy people may opt to just pay the tax. This wouldn't be good.

Lastly, what upsets me most is that politics has devolved into class warfare. The "elite", as you describe, probably includes me even though I hardly think of myself in such terms. Yet, I'm being asked to shoulder more of the cost even though I won't benefit. Higher costs and taxes will lead to me laying off workers so I can stay in business. All that does is cause good people to lose their jobs. That sucks.

Maybe some of us should run for office...

 

[BWS1982]

I wouldn't consider you elite, as it's not just about income level, it's about mindset and character too, just to be clear. I suppose my usage dictated it was just from an income level standpoint, but I meant that as a facet of "elite" not the driving force behind that classification.

Much of this will be fleshed out in details over time (it's impossible to anticipate each minutiae, nobody has that insight). I think getting the ball rolling is a good start, but yes, I'll be upset if this somehow makes anything worse. The reason I am so overzealous about this initiative is because I don't foresee any worsening, but then again, sure, I'm lacking such insight into the future as well.

I think the insurance companies have failed at attracting such bright individuals, or they are simply overwhelmed in sheer numbers by the deficiencies and ineptitude of the masses around them. They incessantly seem to judge things from a profit standpoint, which I think is problematic, that's what a business should do, hence the problem. They go "by the book" and judge that someone doesn't deserve remicade double the dose because it's not shown to do this or that despite the GI stating that's the last option. They are myopic in far too many cases, looking at things with tunnel vision and statistical analysis and not case by case with astute judgment.

I don't think we have the poor being aided intentionally less when it comes to fire departments, so I see no reason for the discriminatory nature you describe, but yes, by its very nature it oppresses segments of the population. That's why the whole concept needs an overhaul, so there are alternatives. Universal healthcare and insurance are different concepts as DanM said, which is where the problem is.

I'm just tired of envying those in other nations that can focus on getting better and not on how they can finance getting better. I think that's a simple, honest emotion.

 

[kenny]

If it's so good why did Danny Williams come to USA for his heart surgery,.

Well this part deserves a decent answer anyway.

In Canada you could walk into an Emergency room carrying your fingers in your other hand and you would be triaged based on the immediate need of your situation. A single mom might be in there with her child who cut his whole hand off and even though they have NO money that kid is going into the Emergency room before you. You could flash a C note at the nurse or show her your Blue Cross coverage and it will not make one bit of difference. The poor kid still goes first if he is hurt worse.

Danny Williams wanted to jump the cue. My Aunt Joice is a wonderful lady of no significant importance to anyone other than those who love her. She had a more pressing heart condition and would have been placed ahead of Mr. Williams. Her heart surgery was pushed back 2 weeks because there were no ICU beds open for her recovery. Her condition was not immediately life threatening so people who were in that life threatening situation took precedence. Mr Williams seems to have wanted to jump the Cue.

I myself had to wait three months for my elective resection. I had the option of emergency butchery/surgery or go home, work down the inflammation/infection and come back for a neat clean job which resulted in much less loss of small bowel. I will also say that I was sucking on the govt tit the whole time as I qualified for Medical leave under the Employment Insurance act of Canada and got full benefits for 30 weeks.

While I waited those three months the OR schedule was full of intestinal cancer patients who were deemed more urgent than me. I was anxious to get fixed up but I never once felt that I needed more urgent care than I was getting. My father suggested the Danny Williams (Bob Reiger, a friend of my fathers who did the same thing) route and said I could sue the govt up here to get my money back after. I told him that if I actually needed that surgery right away I would get it, but I just had to patiently wait my turn. I was scared as hell I was going to be put on TPN while waiting because my weight got so low but now I see it was all ok.

I :Karl: socialist health care. I wish we had basic dental too, but only people on welfare get that. Us poor working stiffs have to pay for that with private insurance or out of pocket.

 

[Cookie]

Much of this will be fleshed out in details over time (it's impossible to anticipate each minutiae, nobody has that insight). I think getting the ball rolling is a good start, but yes, I'll be upset if this somehow makes anything worse. The reason I am so overzealous about this initiative is because I don't foresee any worsening, but then again, sure, I'm lacking such insight into the future as well.

This is precisely why this situation needs to be handled as a step by step process. The more drastic the change, the greater the unanticipated consequences. There are some good things in this bill. I think everyone can agree on that. Why not break it apart into smaller pieces of legislation and start with those that are the least contraversial? If nothing else, you will get less resistance that way.

To add to the point that Fen was making regarding forcing insurers to cover unhealthy people...If they are not allowed to charge more for these people, they will inevitably raise their rates across the board to compensate.

 

[BWS1982]

Another thing of note is if the insurance companies are taking in more healthy people for "just in case" scenarios, they will undoubtedly get a steady flow of income from a source to which has no real expense, that should be a helpful offset of sorts. That should allow them to avoid the need to raise rates on unhealthy individuals anyways (despite the fact that they won't be allowed to do that in time in the first place)... Hey, I initially plan to stick with United Healthcare, the one through my employer, but now I will not be worried about living in an alley eating pizza crust if I lose my job and insurance one day.
We shall see.

Of final note, Shady, is that I see that here we're all on the same page, that at least some good is in this. In the real world around me, there is nothing but enraged animosity towards this bill and the president who pushed it through. They called for his assassination on Twitter, more than one person. That's insane, that such a noble intent is misconstrued to such a degree. People claiming that Obama has now turned this country into the "USSA" and the likes? Ridiculous.

 

[pb4]

Well, after seeing this on the news tonight (here's the news link)....watch the video link, the story comes on after the advertisement...

http://news.globaltv.com/money/Deat...+follow+health+care+debate/2724530/story.html

I see there are still too many cave-man mentalities among US citizens who don't deserve health care. Absolutely shameful that this is how human beings react to something good and positive...well it's funny how taxpayers don't want their money spent on a universal health care system that would take care of everyone, but they don't mind paying for extra security out of their tax dollars for the completely barbaric and stupid behavior some people have. Unbelievable and totally pathetic, no respect! What losers! Sarah Palin "reload" good god you guys are lucky she has no control over the entire country, what a joke.

 

[farm]

I see there are still too many cave-man mentalities among US citizens who don't deserve health care

It's not just the US, I can promise you that.

Today they found that the bill violated budget laws.
It was so rushed and pushed out.

If they would step back and look at it from every angle then start from building block 1, then I think they could come up with something that would actually work.
Instead this rushed, pushed, pressured bill is passed and no one really knows/understands what it entails.

If you haven't read the bill you can request a copy of the "text of the bill" from your congressman/woman. Of course this isn't the entire bill, but you can read what is actually in it vs. what some website says is in it.

 

[farm]

Before, there would be no choice. I'm of the thought that one choice is better than none. I don't consider COBRA a choice, I consider it a failed and expensive bandaid.

edit: Farm, I hope to show you some benefit will come of this to you personally (beyond the pre-existing condition elimination), so I don't know if any of this sounds beneficial to you (maybe for Will one day? It would be great if he could be under your job's insurance that much longer should the need arise?)

Where is the laid out plan to cut $1 Trillion from the deficit in 20 years? I'd love to see that.


To start why didn't they just pass 2 bills?
1. No more pre-existing conditions.
2. No one shall be denied health insurance for any reason.

Would those 2 bills not have been the PERFECT building blocks and give the US time to create a great plan that will effect us, our kids, grand-kids, etc for years and years to come?