You suck!!:stinks:This just makes me realise how easy it is to take something for granted (universal healthcare) as I have never known any different.
Good luck guys, I hope the reforms continue.
Dusty.
Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read up on it over the weekend.
Too bad everyone in the US can't / won't do this. They will spend there day just watching fox news.Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read up on it over the weekend.
With Medicare, when a person falls in the "doughnut hole", it provides for 50% discounts on brand name medication, until the catastrophic coverage kicks in.How does this lower medicine costs though?
Does this only apply to Medicare or private insurances as well?With Medicare, when a person falls in the "doughnut hole", it provides for 50% discounts on brand name medication, until the catastrophic coverage kicks in.
It also allows for preventative care to be covered (which was previously not covered) which would include vaccinations, and cancer screenings.
Also, my last colonoscopy was free, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. It's considered a preventative screening.
I prefer to get my news from John Stewart!Too bad everyone in the US can't / won't do this. They will spend there day just watching fox news.
I refuse to count how many times I used it in that post! :lol:Kat, you throw that word "free" around so loosely!
My colonoscopy wasn't covered through private insurance.With Medicare, when a person falls in the "doughnut hole", it provides for 50% discounts on brand name medication, until the catastrophic coverage kicks in.
It also allows for preventative care to be covered (which was previously not covered) which would include vaccinations, and cancer screenings.
Also, my last colonoscopy was free, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. It's considered a preventative screening.
Don't even get me started on Faux news.Too bad everyone in the US can't / won't do this. They will spend there day just watching fox news.
Well good because you will most positively be seeing him for 4 more years.Don't even get me started on Faux news.
I'm not sure how this bill works. Does it mean you have to have insurance? Seems no good for poor people. I mean, where I come from, all our medical expenses are paid. But our prescriptions are not.
But I would like to take this opportunity to express my firm love for Obama. Why? Because the Reps call him too liberal, and the democrats call him too conservative. He supports gay marriage, quite much against the right, but isn't bowing down to half-year lefties. Meaning, he opposes the crazies in the Republican side, AND the crazies in the Democrat side. MEANING, he isn't working for one side or the other. MEANING, he does what he thinks is right. He works for people, not bipartisanship. He is handsome. He is God. I love barack obama.
Much better than Dick Rantorum or that political hooker. Both of them are so smarmy.Well good because you will most positively be seeing him for 4 more years.
...Anyway, it’s a shame that we can’t reform health care in this country without sticking it to the young. Lately, some of them seem to be noticing. Even as more young people enjoy the benefits of extending the parental insurance protection, support for President Obama and the Democrats continues to fall among young adult voters. If the millennial generation ever figures out the intergenerational scamming at the heart of what’s left of the blue social model, American politics will change, fast.
See thats a great point, I have never heard of that term or definition, most likely because I live in the states, but seeing it from that view point is kind of like a "what if" scenario. But I don't think it would affect the states because if you think of it, most on the "brain migration" are moving to the states, and even if the states change it's policy, they are bound to stay due to hardly anywhere else in the world paying more for their services.I'm really not a pro in finance or economy or anything that could be close to be related to that but I am gonna make a guess here. It is sure that the system is quite different and probably it won't even have the same consequence.
Here in Quebec, one of your Northern neighbors, we are often hearing the population complaining about "L'exode des cerveaux"(Brain migration?) which is stands for the migration of scientists, researchers, professional that move abroad in search of better payments/conditions. Even though it is a bit overrated (it seems that some believe everyone is leaving which really is not the case), it is still a phenomenon that happens, because the wages for health professional(and other fields) are higher in the states than they are here (public system oblige). I don't know if there will be any consequences on this aspect on the long run? If so, I doubt that health professionals will be the first to stand for the ACA. I might totally be wrong though, I'm only wondering about that point.
Hah, I broke my arm last year and it was CLEARLY broken, and I waited about 30min in the ER before they had me processed.....In the USIs there waiting in ER departments? Yes but I would hazard not much different to the US if what I read on here is anything to go by.
I am not sure why I should vote for or be forced into something the President and congress will not take part in. Have you ever wondered why, even after they leave office they no longer need private health care or Medicare? How about the rich in other countries that come to us for medical care? Also- I could be wrong- but after reading the posts from
the UK etc... They wait FOREVER for care no matter their symptoms. And if your older then sometimes you end up to old to treat. The best person to ask is your Dr and no matter the political party not one of my Drs think this plan is good.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the "facts" I have mentioned. I really wont mind.
Lauren
This is a well thought out statement. People here are so convinced by the rhetoric, they are begging to have laws that benefit them DIRECTLY, changed to benefit an industry. Why is healthcare so expensive here? Because of the "free market".I think it's goodish. It's as good as you're going to get down there.
Look. Your current system is utterly unsustainable. It eats away 17% of your GDP. Compare with every other system with comparable results, and you see how much waste is ongoing. That's literally about 2 in every 10 people are working in healthcare services in some manner. Compare to other developed countries which average about 1 in 10.
You don't have to buy insurance. You still have the option not to, but don't you bullshit saying that you'll just pay out of pocket. How about if you die on the table? There's a tab that the taxman is picking up. That is why you pay a penalty if you don't buy insurance, and it's perfectly reasonable.
Is the bill perfect? No, it has some issues. But imagine you were from a poor family, had to choose between health insurance, or going to university. Lets say you chose university, and happened to lose the genetic lottery. Then you get caught in the welfare trap that is medicaid, where you can't work without losing medicaid, and are then not valid for private insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A society where this is a possibility does not deserve to be called first world.
And about it being hard on poor? Well no, people who can't afford health insurance don't have to pay the penalty.
I think the US just needs to learn that they are clinging to dogma, the dogma of free markets solve anything and everything. It's blind, and ignores the fact that the 'father' of the free market used a sentence to describe the invisible hand of the free market. He used books to describe how a totally free market would turn into groups of cartels jockeying for position to infuence government decisions.
Basically he warned that if not properly restrained, capitalism would create the United States of America, 2012.
Enjoy,
Nathan
tl;dr you've got a lot of dumb people who use either being religious or being a military child as an excuse to say dumb, ignorant things. They don't think.I still don't get how people in this country can be so against something that benefits them directly. So what if we have to pay more in tax? I would rather pay 10% more in tax, than be denied care, or hear that someone I know died because they couldn't get treatment for an illness. Better yet, cut military/defense spending by 20% and apply the difference to healthcare, and education?
Oh wait.. that's SOCIALISM!
& from the Washington PostThe slowly expanding sovereign-debt crisis and Europe’s halfhearted attempts to deal with it have dominated reporting about Europe for the past few years, but the Continent has a graver and even more intractable problem. Megan McArdle points out at The Atlantic that even if Europe manages to get its finances under control its demographics threaten to further cripple its economy:
Unfortunately, growth (or at least the sustainable variety) is typically a long time in the baking, and dependent on two main ingredients: more workers and higher worker productivity. And much of Europe is short on the former. That has big implications for Europe’s future. [...]
Italy’s fertility rate has actually been inching up from its 1995 low of 1.19 children for every woman, but it is still only about 1.4—well below the number needed to replenish its population (2.1). As a result, even with some immigration, Italy’s population growth has been very slow. It will soon stall, and eventually go into reverse. And then, one by one, the rest of Europe’s nations will follow. Not one country on the Continent has a fertility rate high enough to replace its current population. Heavy debt and a shrinking population are a very bad combination.
This nails it. Generous welfare programs, early retirement, low birthrates, and crippling debt are the most serious problems facing the developed world at the moment. As with the debt crisis, it doesn’t appear that Europe has developed any credible plan to deal with the most serious long-term issue it faces.
As for the high cost of our medical services, I suppose new technology and more services drive costs up. That is mentioned from what I've read. Some view more access to medical care as a plus, and as mentioned here others a negative. Not sure if we will see a large role with central planning in the near future telling hospitals what services they can offer and not. Possibly that will come. Do remember this mention about new panels limiting services to different medical tests.That’s the reality, writes Matt Miller in the Washington Post:
You [younger Americans] are in big trouble. You don’t even know it. You’re busy trying to get a degree, land a job, start a family, save for a home. You don’t follow the news. But trust me—you’ve been taken for a ride by your elders. . . .
The job market for young people is a disaster, the toll of a burst financial and housing bubble that both parties let fester. The crisis has reached the point where years of unpaid labor (in the form of internships) have become a way of life for millions of Americans in their 20s.
Our K-12 schools have slid from the best in the world to mediocre under both Republican and Democratic presidents and governors. That’s largely because for decades we’ve embraced a bipartisan policy of recruiting middling students to become teachers.
Our roads, bridges, sewers, airports and power grids desperately need upgrades. Our investments in research and development as a share of our economy trail that of our peers. Republicans don’t seem to care. Democrats care enough to propose token sums that would fund a fraction of the need.
There’s no cash for such investments in the future because pension and health-care programs for seniors (plus a bloated Pentagon) take up so much of the budget. At the federal level, seven dollars go to programs supporting elderly consumption for every dollar invested in people under 18. Nationally (after taking account of the fact that most education is paid for at the state and local level), the ratio is still 2 1 / 2 to one…
Want more? For years, states have let public pension managers assume their investments would grow 7.5 or 8 percent a year, when 3 to 6 percent has been more realistic. This bipartisan ploy hides trillions more in pension shortfalls, funds that will have to be forked over one day by (you guessed it) younger Americans....
The other mentions are our litigious society. We tend to sue each other a great deal. That causes physicians to practice defensive medicine, meaning more tests are ordered than necessary in order to cover their ass in trying to prevent a law suite. As mentioned above, some view defensive medicine as attributing 1/3 of the cost to our medical system....According to the Times, many of these additional routine procedures are ordered by doctors because they fear malpractice lawsuits. The more tests they run, the better protected they are. They are also ordered because, well, they pay, and doctors and hospitals are, on the whole, fond of money.
Some estimates cited in the Times piece suggest that unnecessary treatment accounts for one third of total medical spending in the country. Obamacare advocates sometimes played that down in the debate over the law before it was passed. Any talk about cutting back on “unnecessary” procedures was sure to spook the voters; as fast as you can say “death panel” voters worry when health care reformers talk about those horrible bitter clingers out there in the boonies using “too much” health care to prolong their worthless Snuggie wrapped, polyester-clad existences for a few more miserable months of watching Fox News and American Idol.
Physician greed and patient insensitivity to cost (if insurance is paying, why not have just one more little test to make sure?) are definitely part of the mess. But every doctor I’ve ever talked to — and the Mead family has been producing physicians in every generation back to great-grandfather Mead who graduated from medical school in the late 1800s — says that malpractice fears play a huge role in driving doctors and hospitals to play defensive medicine...
While I can see you put some time into your response, it does not prove a decline in the US population...The mention about baby boomers and few kids comes from the declining birthrate seen in America and the west for that matter. It is frequently mentioned in the news. It's one of the bigger problems we face. At one time I believe it was 12 workers supported one person in retirement receiving government benefits. Some have speculated that it could eventually be down to 2 workers for every retired citizen in the future. It is why Social Security and Medicare are often mentioned as needing reform in order to make them affordable.
Thanks Slim, I did post a good deal of information above about my concerns, largely with the cost and also with the declining birth rate which makes for higher debt loads for todays youth. Thanks too for the link to population numbers. I think though we are missing each other on this topic.While I can see you put some time into your response, it does not prove a decline in the US population...
Here is a table showing the US population GROWTH over the last 30 years.
Now turn off Fox, and do some real research.
...One of the problems with the American health care system is the ability of lobbies to persuade Congress and state legislators to mandate coverage for their own pet causes or diseases. Chiropractors, acupuncturists, psychologists, drug companies: everyone wants to be included in mandatory coverage.
Unfortunately, every year special interests will find ways to hook new mandates onto the insurance requirements, and every year the cost of coverage will inexorably rise.
At one level there is nothing wrong with this; the more coverage for consumers, the better. But there’s the question of cost. If all insurance plans have to be gold-plated, full-service — and pre-existing conditions have to be covered — then health insurance is going to be unaffordable for many and perhaps most people. Young people in particular need low cost options; their incomes are low and their health risks are less so for some students choosing a cheap plan with limited coverage makes sense.
Students probably won’t be the only ones to face nasty surprises from the new system as time goes on. Although Obamacare was passed more than three years ago now, most of its provisions still have not taken effect. The public is slowly becoming aware of “minor” provisions hidden deep within the 2,700 page bill that are turning out to have a major impact on their lives. In many cases, people haven’t liked what they’ve seen; contrary to the predictions of supporters, public support for the bill has actually dropped in the years since its passage.
I live in Utah, and as a state, people here generally have large families. My grandfather in particular, had over 60 children, between 5 wives.
Also thought this a nice article on partially why America has high medical costs. We pay a good deal more than we need. This is why it is unlikely that we will see lower costs any time soon....Starting in 2014, people will have new options to buy insurance through exchanges or enroll in the Medicaid program.
Most people will also be required to carry a set level of insurance or pay a penalty. That provision is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the law, which the Supreme Court is set to rule on by the end of June.
Should the law survive, it will put an end to insurance plans that limit the amount of money they pay out for covered health benefits, and most plans currently have to offer at least $1.25 million in coverage
Some unions and employers can still offer plans to lower-wage hourly workers that have limited benefits similar to those of the student plans, because they were given waivers by the administration allowing them to continue those plans until 2014. Schools can't apply for the same waivers for student plans.
In all, millions of Americans are likely to be affected as insurance premiums are adjusted in response to new coverage requirements...
Another article I liked from Gerri Willis....We obviously can't transplant Singapore's approach wholesale to the United States. But the reason we can't emulate even some of Singapore's success has to do with that iron law of health-care politics: Every dollar of health-care "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. As a stable advanced democracy, we're so overrun by groups with stakes in today's waste that real efficiency gains are perennially blocked.
Any hope for something better starts with tallying the price of today's paralysis. Think about that $2 trillion the next time you see states, citing budget woes, shut the door to college on tens of thousands of poor American students. Or when the next firm moves jobs overseas because health costs here are soaring. Or when the next bridge collapses. Thanks, Medical Industrial Complex!
We return now to our regularly scheduled political battle, which (no matter the outcome, according to some projections) will leave health costs headed to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2019.
If this was the case, insurance companies stock values would have tanked with the supreme court decision. They've been down a little, but nothing that would suggest that institutional investors are worried about their long term outlook.From what I understand, the new health care law is pretty much designed to remove the private insurance firms out of health care. It will take time but likely we will have single payer insurance eventually.
Can you provide an example in history where the same basic thing has happened (in the USA)?As a non US person I think this is great. The cost of Crohn will now weigh more on the government, which will lead to cheaper and hopefully safer medication, if anything it will increase funding for crohn.
No I can't, the US has been pretty much an exception to the rule in the West.Can you provide an example in history where the same basic thing has happened?
That's a good point. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.If this was the case, insurance companies stock values would have tanked with the supreme court decision. They've been down a little, but nothing that would suggest that institutional investors are worried about their long term outlook.
Well, that would be nice, but I don't have hopes for that. I recall the last budget President Obama submitted cut funding for IBD research. No one voted for the President's budget, his party or the opposition though, so for what it is worth...As a non US person I think this is great. The cost of Crohn will now weigh more on the government, which will lead to cheaper and hopefully safer medication, if anything it will increase funding for crohn.
Gee, it is only 1,990 pages of legalese. Apparently Slim Johnson has read it cover to cover and understands it fully. That is way more than most all members of congress have done. After all, like Nancy Pelosi said: "if you want to know what is in the bill, you have to pass it first." Sound reasoning to pass a bill if you ask me.Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read up on it over the weekend.
I don't think any of Congress read the bills they pass. They leave it to their staff. And where do you get the idea that I have read the bill cover to cover, and understand it fully?? Did I make that statement somewhere?Gee, it is only 1,990 pages of legalese. Apparently Slim Johnson has read it cover to cover and understands it fully. That is way more than most all members of congress have done. After all, like Nancy Pelosi said: "if you want to know what is in the bill, you have to pass it first." Sound reasoning to pass a bill if you ask me.
You seem to speak about it with authority and rail against anyone who does not agree with your position on it. Below is an example:I don't think any of Congress read the bills they pass. They leave it to their staff. And where do you get the idea that I have read the bill cover to cover, and understand it fully?? Did I make that statement somewhere?
I have read parts of the bill, while not reading it all.You seem to speak about it with authority and rail against anyone who does not agree with your position on it. Below is an example:
It is absolutely beneficial for us. Maybe instead of calling it "Obamacare", you could call it the Affordable Care Act (which is it's proper name).
Why are you against it? I am curious. Have you any idea what the bill does? OR was it because of Fox news? Or another reason altogether?
It's disheartening that so many people are against legislation that would directly benefit them. Truly a shame, and an accurate representation of America in it's present form.
If you have not read it, how can you make such statements?
That is probably because there is a grandfather clause for insurance plans that existed before the AFA became law. As long as they do not change their plans they can operate as always. But if they change their plans almost in any way at all they lose their exemption and fall under the AFA. I don't remember the criteria insurance plans have to follow to stay grandfathered, but it is so strict that none of them will be able to for long, especially since they can't significantly raise rates.My colonoscopy wasn't covered through private insurance.
Because stubbing your toe would go over the coverage provided by such a plan.Why not make the insurance industry accountable where they offer very affordable plans where it won't cost a family (say of 4)) their living space or a car that's needed to go to work?
2) Price Controls. Every gov't system relies on price controls and other gov't mandates dictating what services are provided and how much. Instead, more choice should be available to the patient. Insurance companies cannot even sell their health plans across state lines. Imagine if the isurance companies could sell their policies across state lines, like auto insurance. My car insurance is not specific to my state and health insurance should be similar. Whenever prices are dictated, shortages result and lots of abuse to the system occurs. The shortages we have now are because some things are so expensive, and the ACA expands the very cause of this problem. Look at your hospital bill more closely and ask yourelves, is it really fair that the tyelonol they gave me costs $20 (or some similar amount)? My last CT scan cost $11,000 as listed on the hospital bill. Why? When Plasma TV's came out, they cost about that price and then the price dropped like a stone over the next few years. Not so in healthcare. In short,the who point of ACA was to give coverage to people who did not have coverage- it had NOTHING to do with being more "affordable". That's just laughable.
Hi CLynn, would you mind sharing a source for this? Are you referring to the infamous "death panels", where allegedly people without medical experience would make life/death decisions about the patient's treatment?As was said previously, it has it's good and bad points. But one thing I will never agree with is that under Obamacare, at some points, THEY decide if you are allowed to treat certain diseases based on things like your age. For instance, if at 70 you are diagnosed with cancer, they will NOT cover treatment for you, you would have to pay for it on your own should you choose to treat.
Oh yeah, I had procedures done and when I got my bill they charged for every single thing down to the little protective sleeve they put the thermometer in, I swear. Also, anyone who is the room with you while you are having the procedure, you will get a seperate bill from that person. I had a very low dose of pain med( 1 shot of fentyl) after my procedure. They charged me $450 for it!!!
Also, yes, insurance companies will charge you up the butt for preexsisting conditions. My son has asthma. Well back when I was working the company was in the middle of getting a new insurance company.. Well that left us without insurance for like a couple months. I tried to get insurance for my son for those 2 months since he has asthma and I did not want him without health insurance for that long. Oh I never got denied, but almost every insurance company wanted to charge me like $1000 to $1600 a month!!! That was because he had a per-exsisting condition. Unreal!
I think it is just sad that they can get away with treating people this way. They say they cannot afford free healthcare in the US!! I say Bullshit! If they can have free healthcare in some of the poorest countries( like cuba), then there is NO excuse here!!!! Greed is all it is about here!
Wow. What flavor is that koolaid? Seriously need to get over this greedy docotor, insuranace co, hospital, concept. You need to see how much Hospitals have to pay for the stuff they provide before making comments like this. If I come over to your house and offer you a product and service that you really, really want and I say it won't cost you one penny, what will your reaction be? You'll slam he door in my face, as you should. Please remember that next time someone offers you free stuff.
Not exactly sure where you are coming from with your comment. First off, I was never offered anything for free nor did I expect it.
what I was getting at is, as in some other countries, the people that live there pay taxes to the government which in turn pays for their health care. This way it is regulated and greedy hospitals and insurance companies are not allowed to rob you blind!!!
I am sorry, but there is no way in hell that ANY hospital should charge $450 for one shot of a pain med!! That is outrageous. There is no way in hell they had to pay that amount to get this drug. It is disgraceful. I also just had an MRE of the small bowel. The final charge was $6,190!! Here you pay about the same for a colonoscopy as well!! This is not right. Like I said before, it is like being robbed without a gun! My close friend lost her home because of HUGE outrageous medical bills. Sad thing is that this is happening to a lot of people here in the US when it should not be!
$11,000 for a CT?! :yfaint:
As you say, the cost is outrageous. I hear what you say about not knowing the costs on the other side but if I go to a radiology centre here (these are privately run businesses) and pay up front for a CT scan the cost is about $400. The difference is mind blowing and I thought I was doing it tough if I had to pay $400.
Dusty.
Any yes, you hit the nail on the head- there need to be other resources available for healthcare services in the US. But with the passage of ACA, these smaller kind of healthcare centers will be decreasing in numbers, forcing people to go to hospitals for all kinds of services. Doctors too, will be moving from private practice to become hospital employees because it will be too expensive otherwise. Not exactly how you bring costs down.I don't have the bill, but that $11K could have been for when my doctor put the scope inside my ileum to look. Either way, completely outrageous. At the time, I was hospitalized for a small bowel obstruction. The CT test and the scope were done after the other tests could not rule out Crohn's. The 7 days of care billed to my insurance was over $40,000, and I did not have any surgery. Now, when I go to ballgame I expect to pay higher prices for a beer. But when prices got crazy, like $7 for a lousy bottle of Coors, I choose to drink beforehand. Unfortunately when I go to the hospital, I can't do that. :biggrin: