Obamacare and Crohn's Disease

Crohn's Disease Forum

Help Support Crohn's Disease Forum:

seebee

seebee

Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
181
Now that the president's health reform was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court what does it mean for someone with a disease like Crohn's? Do you think it's to our advantage?
I was just wondering since I was never pro Obamacare to begin with.
 
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.
 
Couldn't of said it better Slim. This bill will make our medication so much cheaper in the future, you should be 100% for this bill being a Crohn's sufferer
 
I'm pretty excited about it! It means I can't be denied insurance(or be 'easily' denied) because of my pre-existing medical condition. I can also stay on my parents insurance plan for much longer. God knows, even with a job, at 18 that there is no way I'd be able to pay for all these medications out of pocket.

It is very sad so many people are bashing it. I think it is because they believe everything they hear on the news & they don't realize that, at any time, they themselves can be DX with a disabling illness with no cure, like Crohn's Disease.
 
I didn't like the idea of it but that was before I was diagnosed so now your job guys and gals is to convince me of it's benefits!
 
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. :)
 
I'm thrilled because more people will be covered and rates will go down. We will be protected against discrimination based on our pre-existing condition.

How does this lower medicine costs though?
 
nogutsnoglory said:
How does this lower medicine costs though?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slim Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does this only apply to Medicare or private insurances as well?
 
The preventative care applies to private insurance, as well as Medicare.

Medicare will also compensate entirely for some preventative screenings.

Presently I have both private insurance, and Medicare. Thanks to both coverages, and the ACA, my surgery cost me ~1300$; down from >57,000$.
 
I would like to give an example of Matt's journey so you can all compare. Bear in mind that nothing is for free, we pay for this system through our taxes and it does differ from country to country. Not every aspect of our system is free and Matt likely received some of his out of hospital care for free because of his age. Having said that if you do have to pay out of pocket a certain amount will be refunded to you via Medicare:

All of Matt's bloods tests from November 2010 and ongoing - free.

Medicatons are $34.00 per script or less.

Hospital admission December 2010 for eight days which included CT scans, IV's, meds, blood, faecal tests, daily doctors visits, etc - free.

Hospital admission January 2011 for 3 and half weeks which included all of the above plus insertion of a drain - free.

Between discharge and surgery in April all dressing supplies for drain were provided free.

Weekly GP visits and bloods free.

Progress scans free.

Cost to fly to Sydney and back 3 times, including accommodation, was subsidised.

Visits to two specialists were subsidised.

Admission to hospital in April for eight days for an ileocaecal resection - free.

In a nutshell, if you go to a public hospital as a public patient, which is still the main system here, you do not pay anything. Outside of hospital most blood tests are free, PBS scripts are $34.00 full price if you don't have a concession/pension card but not all meds cost that, many GP's bulk bill so that is free, specialists usually don't bulk bill so you have to pay and then claim a certain amount of money back from Medicare, imaging done outside of a hospital will usually need to be paid for and you claim back a certain amount from Medicare.
You still have the option of private health insurance and can go the private route if you wish. This system would be similar to what you have.

Sorry Slim...:(
 
I am happy about this.

I like the idea that one day I cannot be discriminated against, because I have a pre-existing condition.

Do I think its right to force people to buy insurance? I don't think its wrong. In the long run, we end up paying for those who don't have insurance. If someone gets into a serious car accident and/or had some type of trauma, if they don't have health insurance, we don't just let them die and not treat them. Instead, EVERYONE ends up paying for it in the long run. It runs medical care prices, drugs, procedures, everything up.

That is part of the reason why it will help drive prices down in the long run nogutsnoglory. At least... that's what I gather! I could be completely wrong. :)
 
Thanks for explaining that some, Dusty.

I knew a little bit about then NHS, but not much. I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with having something similar to that?
 
Kat, you throw that word "free" around so loosely!

I thought the price I came away with was pretty good. My son broke his arm last April, and the bill just for the ER was 800$ after insurance. His bill didn't include a week stay in the hospital either..:poo:

Several years ago, I had a trip to the ER to stitch up a gash on my head. The bill after insurance was over 1200$! I was beyond shocked.

The ACA is a big step in bringing some sense into American health care.
 
Slim Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

My colonoscopy wasn't covered through private insurance.
 
EthanPSU said:
Too bad everyone in the US can't / won't do this. They will spend there day just watching fox news.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You can thank both Mitt Romney and the GOP from 1993 for today Obamacare. This is exactly what the GOP proposed in the early 1990's to combat the Hilary Clinton healthcare reform. It is also pretty similar to what Mitt Romney passed in Mass when he was governor. In fact Obama's team consulted in Romney's team who created it. Its a shame that the GOP now is fighting what they wanted 20 years ago just because it was proposed by Obama.

If you watch either Fox News (The right) or CNN (The Left) and believe what you are being told you are sadly misinformed.

Disclaimer, I am neither a democrat or republican and a small business owner. I vote based on the prior voting records of the candidates on the bills that are important to me.
 
RFarmer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well good because you will most positively be seeing him for 4 more years.
 
EthanPSU said:
Well good because you will most positively be seeing him for 4 more years.
Click to expand...

Much better than Dick Rantorum or that political hooker. Both of them are so smarmy.

I think most who like Rick are right extremists, and most people who like that other dude (who's name escapes me) think he's gonna save america's economy because he has lots of money.

I don't know much about politics. But Obama's opponents are just silly candidates. Also, I rigged the elections in his favor. :eek:
 
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
 
Sure hope the insurance premiums change for the better. To insure me, my husband and 2 children equals $1500.00 per month. Totally sucks! More than my house note.
 
I gotta say my experience is the same as DustyKat. I can't even imagine having to pay a bill for whatever I had done in regard to my health...being sick is stressful enough without having to worry about how I'm going to pay for it when alls said and done! We too have universal healthcare here, nobody has to pay for things like doctors visits, hospital stays, blood work, scans etc but we do have to pay for drug prescriptions. Usually you have what we call 'extended health insurance' through your employer and this usually covers a good portion of prescription costs. Either your employer fully covers the premium or you each pay a portion. After that, we have something called Pharmacare which is basically the government. This helps cover the cost of prescriptions once a predetermined deductible has been met in prescription costs. The deductible is based on your previous years tax returns so those that make more have a higher deductible to reach before Pharmacare kicks in. Once it starts though, you pay very little, if any out of your own pocket. As was previously mentioned, none of this is really 'free', we pay for it in our taxes but its all I've ever known and can't imagine things any different! I think the amount paid in taxes is less than the amount you'd pay for each hospital stay, doctors visit and set of tests...especially for those of us with ongoing medical needs.
 
Obamacare has some good points and equally bad points. A concern is not reining in costs. It does little in this area - there isn't tort reform, special interests have made sure their programs are included in coverage, little incentive for patients to save costs, etc. As a nation that is already high in debt, and watching many European countries struggle to find lenders to continue financing their way to life, one would think cost containment would be a greater consideration than it has been.

And even though the mention of leaving kids onto their parents insurance till the age of 26 was given, in the end it will be youth paying higher costs for Obamacare. More reforms will be needed if we are to afford the new healthcare law. Overall, the baby boom generation had few kids. Not enough money has been paid into the entitlement programs, and there are now fewer workers to support those retired.

Along those lines, recall this article by a concerned professor, Walter Russell Mead, on Obamacare.

"War on the Young: Healthcare Edition"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/15/war-on-the-young-healthcare-edition/

snippet from his article:

...In itself, this isn’t a bad thing. Young people in the first years after college move from job to job and many can’t get or afford good insurance. Via Meadia congratulates the newly insured and in itself, this is one of the pieces of the health care bill we liked.
But there’s a catch. As more pieces of the bill come online, the health care law turns into yet another example of middle aged America’s war against the young. The individual mandate will force millions of struggling young people to pay higher than necessary premiums in order to subsidize insurance for old geezers like me.
This would be OK, I suppose, if today’s young people would get the same service in turn — but they won’t. The costs of health care are rising so rapidly, and the government is so stretched, that when today’s struggling research assistants and interns grow into respectable pundits, the health insurance they get will cost more and do less than the insurance they helped my generation to afford. Thanks, kids, for the cash...

&

...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.
Click to expand...
 
There's always issues about how long you wait, I know this is a big complaint in Canada but I've experienced both sides of this coin. There have been instances where you wait all day but I've only seen this if you have something like a broken ankle or something that although needs tending to, isn't going to do you much harm to sit and wait a bit. I've been to the ER many times in pain and needing scans of some sort or another and have been out within hours too. I really believe that our system is based on need and if you're in a lot of pain or something is life threatening, you get in quickly and are dealt with promptly. The long waits, in my experience, are only when its something less serious :)
 
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.

In term of waiting forever, I think it is true that you are prone to wait longer with Universal Health Care but, usually, the waiting time depends of the condition. I know you can wait pretty much forever for benign things, like if you have basic problem like common wart and want to see a dermatologist you can wait up to a year, maybe even two. If your blood tests are a total wreck, you will be seen promptly, etc etc. I know for a fact that I have never waited abusive amount of time. For instance, my surgery this year really was not an emergency. My quality of life really was impacted but I was not endangered by my condition. The surgery was requested end of march and performed beginning of may. It is sure that UHC can have downside, especially for non-urgent conditions (I think the worst here are those related to orthopedic surgery), but at the same time, is it normal to be letting some people without the resources to receive health assistance?
 
PsychoJane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

But this community is great because we have people from everywhere and you learn something new every day, now I know what "Brain Migration" is.
 
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
 
Is 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 have had 4 ER visits with my kids and never had to wait longer than 10 minutes. With specialists I have always been able to make an appointment with a time frame that suits me. When it was urgent the GP rang late on a Friday afternoon and Matt had a consult the following Tuesday, scopes Wednesday, CTE Thursday and final consult Friday.

There will always be wonderful stories and horrendous ones with most people fitting somewhere in-between. At the end of the day those that can afford it have a choice, private health insurance and private hospitals, but if you can't or choose not to you will receive appropriate health care no matter what age. As I said care does vary from country to country and we do not have the NHS we have Medicare.

I don't know about the rich going to the US for care. Where are they coming from?

What really interests me is the amount of GDP spent on healthcare. What do they say in the US about this aspect of things? Why is it as high as it is? This is only one article and I chose this one as I was looking for more recent data...

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm

...I would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on this.

Dusty. :)
 
DustyKat said:
Is 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.
Click to expand...

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 US
 
Yeah, a broken arm won't kill ya. Might hurt like hell, but as long as the circulation is not impaired, you'll be ok.

Believe me, they had no issue knowing the arm was broken, but I'm sure the fellow that got in before you that it turned out was having a heart attack was absolutely chipper that you had to wait a bit extra.

:ylol:

Dusty: As for how much healthcare costs down there, I have a few inklings. I am going to see over the next couple of years if I can get a research grant on it because I'd like to see the levels of equipment they have. I figure that the for-profit nature means that competing hospitals end up with a great deal of redundancy. Basically what I mean is that, because Drs Joe and Bob only have enough patients between them in Canada for one MRI machine to run full time, they buy one. But in the states, since they themselves charge for each of their patients they send to their MRI, both buy an MRI machine, effectively doubling the end cost of providing MRI service.
 
30 min for an arm is really not much of a wait. Not to say its not
A significant injury. But if you look at older posts you will see
long (I mean months) for appts to see a specialist or months for
a colonoscopy for a person in unbearable pain. Weight loss, bleeding
Etc.... Why does the president come out and say he will put himself and
His family on this plan?
 
I have a question. I have read several threads where the poster was stating they were on Remicade but would have to come off soon because the country they lived in only provided it for a year, at that time tests were done to determine if remission had been reached and if so they had to stop the Remicade. Does anyone remember these threads? That really bothered me as Remi is working great for my son and the thought of him not having the med because it worked well enough to put him remission staggered my mind. I do believe one of the posters even said it was due to cost saving measures or cost effectiveness. Was this a product of single payer healthcare system or universal healthcare or something else?
 
tots said:
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
Click to expand...


I am in the UK and you are quite right in what you say.

However, no medical system as I see it is perfect. You'd need to decide which lesser evil you'd rather have- that in the US today or the new proposal.

I've lived in the US too and personally I think anything would be better than what you have now.

Out of interest do you know on what grounds your Drs disagree with the plans?
 
Gculk said:
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
Click to expand...

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".

Why is it that insurance companies get FAT discounts on healthcare charges; yet if we pay out of pocket for the SAME care, we get no discount? My surgery cost over 50K$, just for the hospital services! The insurance company received a discount of OVER 15K$! I have now idea how much Medicare was able to write off. How can we as Americans deem this sort of pandering acceptable?

Sarah Palin was bellowing about "death panels" denying care to people who need it, if "big gubmin't" took over healthcare. Ironic that PRIVATE insurance companies have well paid staff, who's sole purpose is to DENY YOU coverage? Death panel?? Really? Medicare has yet to deny me care, or ask me to provide proof that my condition isn't preexisting, or work related; prior to a procedure. My Private insurance on the other hand...

And what is this nonsense about Babyboomers not having many children? You really believe that nonsense? I am a child of a Babyboomer, and the population has DOUBLED in the last 30 years.. The idea that there are fewer people paying into "entitlements" (they aren't entitlements if you pay for them..) is pure BS. There are more people working, and paying taxes now, than there were even ten years ago. If I am wrong, then show me in factual form, just one year that the United States population hasn't grown in the last 50 years.

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! :eek:
 
Slim Johnson said:
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! :eek:
Click to expand...

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.

long version.

I can answer that... America is a silly place. Full of right wing crazies, hicks, and ignorant hateful parents who live vicariously through their children. Anything that smells of equality, anything non-capitalistic, anything that brings poor closer to rich, anything that smells of "commi-nism", or ANY of the other 20+ million things that many American's hate just because they're told to, is a terrible idea, and is going to bring down the apocalypse.

I suspect a lot of right wing crazies also don't like access to medicine because it means we don't have to rely on praying solely :/ I read an article somewhere, sometime about how the right wing wanted to ban abortion clinics, which would only be able to keep poor/raped/unfit women from aborting their babies. The article went on to explain how the far right does this because it can't control the rich, it can't control people's values, and it can't control the progression of time, so it tries to control the poor.

OF course, I'm not saying every christian in America is bad. I live in Canada now. They don't really have an anti-gay, muslim hating, kill abortion doctors far right. It's more fiscally conservative than socially. And even the far right here is often shocked by the far right in the US, and how many statements it makes out of ignorance.


I like how this thread is full of opinions. Unfortunately, I don't like reading them :( Anyone got a good non-partisan explanation of good and bad sides of healthcare reform? With bullet points?
 
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.

For some information on the topic I recall this.

"Europe’s Greying a Disaster for Growth"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/02/europes-greying-a-disaster-for-growth/

The 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.
Click to expand...

& from the Washington Post

"There Are No Winners In The War Against The Young"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....ung-is-real-and-the-young-are-already-losing/

excerpt from the article:

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....
Click to expand...

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.

"Are Death Panels Making A Comeback?"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/22/are-death-panels-making-a-comeback/

snippet:

...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...
Click to expand...

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.

Another problem with high costs comes from our 3rd payer system. Insurance or government programs will pay high fees to hospitals, with our requiring patients to shop around.

Overall though, most medical costs are incurred during the last year or 2 of life, when a person is in what doctors some times referred to as "the death spiral." Obviously, hard to pull the plug on granny. But at the same time, I'm guessing these costs will come under greater scrutiny in the future.

Going off topic, but on my mind as I have/had a relative that worked for his city as a paramedic, with generous salary and benefits. He was able to retire at a young age recently. There was the lovely news that pensions funds the US have been underfunded to possibly the tune of 6 trillion dollars. Along with all the other debt not sure how we will pay for that. I guess I wouldn't want to be a government worker looking to rely upon pensions. Fun stuff.

"Time to Occupy State Pensions?"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/25/time-to-occupy-the-pension-funds/
 
How are Americans so blind to realize how unfortunate it is to be caught in a position when you need to choose between paying for a cancer treatment and a mortgage. And that you live in a first world country and accept this is beyond me. I'm a Canadian and I've never had to face this problem. I will give you a picture of what my experience has been for the last 7 years.
I had a severe kidney infection while pregnant with my first child. Stayed in a private room at a hospital for one week came home and had a nurse come to my house everyday for 6weeks to give me antibiotics.
Both my children were delivered at the hospital regular births, two night stays at the hospital for each. Option of a nurse to come to your home twice to help you with any issues. Saw my obgyn regularly and had appointments and all gestational tests run for each.

My husband had open heart surgery. Saw three different cardiologists and had a hole in his heart and leaking valve repair. He spent 7 days in the hospital in a private room one of the best in Toronto. He has yearly testing done.
My husband has a predisposed condition that causes hearing loss. He had surgery to have this repaired and has yearly testing done on his ears.
I have crohns disease. I have had three colonoscopies and see my specialist regularly in fact he calls me weekly when I am flaring.
I have peripheral neuropathy I have seen three neurologists and had multiple tests all within a reasonable times frame- EMG, CT scans, MRIs

Everything I mentioned above was at no added cost to me outside of my regular taxes. I do not have any insurance at all and though I pay for my meds I have researched and found that most of them are nearly twice the cost in the US. All tests and operations were done by some of the best doctors here in Toronto and all appointments, tests and follow-ups were done within a reasonable time frame.
That is a first world health care system.

The only reason rich people will go to the states is because the doctors in America are privatly paid. Which means you have some of the best in the world since you can intice them with higher pay and that if you offer the right amount you can get pushed to the front of the line no matter the level of your problem. I can't see how that is fair. In Canada doctors see you on a triage basis determining who needs care first.
 
10 mins wait in A&E? Blimey,lucky if your saw in 3 hours in UK.

There are a lot of positives about our NHS though. It's the main pull for political party votes at general elections. One of the UK's gems, that I think everyone would hate to see go, despite how much we moan.
 
Beach said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slim Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

As was mentioned above, particularly with the Atlantic article piece, The Greying of Europe, the birth rate in America has slowed or another way to put it declined from what it was in the past. In Europe some even say the population there is shrinking with a birth rate of only 1.7 kids (not all kids have children, pass away early), but here in the good old US of A we are staying about even it is though with 2 kids born per family. Think of it this way in personal terms. The baby boom generation family would have had 3 to 4 brothers and sisters, along with two parents. As the parents aged, and entered retirement, there 3 to 4 kids able to support them, not only personally with help, but also with providing tax money into the government run health care system along with Social Security.

Things changed during the baby boom generation. They where able to plan their family sizes, and as a result had fewer children. That means as the large baby boom generation continues to head into retirement there are 1 to 2 kids supporting those in retirement. We have the additional problem in that medical costs have exploded upwards over the last few decades! And people are living longer after retirement, around 15 years now. That results in todays retires having not paid nearly enough money into the entitlement programs that we currently have. I believe only around 1/3 has been paid into the programs, if I recall correctly. The rest will have to be raised elsewhere.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I had concerns with Obamacare costing a good deal of money. Over the weekend economist Lawrence Kudlow had a mention on this. He wrote about how the original projection of the new Affordable Health Care act has been revised upward, significantly already. Originally the new health care law was said to cost 900 billion over the first 10 years. Now the CBO predicts it will cost us 1.8 trillion for the first 10 years! That's double the original cost! And to be honest, with the way Washington works, I wouldn't be surprised if costs end up being 2 to 3 times that amount. As typically happens, rosy numbers are originally predicted out of government that rarely come true.

Here is Lawrence Kudlow's article. Don't worry, it's safe for you to read, Lawrence works at CNBC.

"A Game-Changer For Romney"

http://news.investors.com/article/616672/201206291741/a-game-changer-for-romney.htm

I was pleased to read that some measures are being made to rein in court costs. I know other measures have been taken in other states perviously. Being that defensive medicine is one of the leading reasons why American health care is to expensive, this newest idea from New Hampshire could help.

"Jackpot Justice Takes a Hit"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/29/jackpot-justice-takes-a-hit-medical-malpractice/

Trial lawyers will not be happy with this idea, but it looks good from what I can tell. People harmed will be compensated, and defendants have a reason to settle with out racking up enormous legal fees.

Off topic but that is one area also that I wouldn't want to be in, or studying to become, an attorney. Seems that automation is going to be putting a good deal of pressure onto the lawyer profession. There won't be as many jobs as their used to be, and of those remaining will pay less.

Overall as blue collar jobs came under pressure from automation over the last few decades, white collar jobs are now feeling the pinch from computers.

"Student Loan Program Pumps Legal Ed Bubble: For Now"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....t-loan-program-pumps-legal-ed-bubble-for-now/
 
Personally (you might all hate me for saying this) but I find it shocking that people are even questioning Obamacare! Who wants to live in a country where people are sick and can't afford to get treatment? Illness is 9/10 something you cannot help, you didnt cause, surely its about giving everyone a level playing field, being kind to your fellow man.

I am also shocked at some peoples incredibly cynical view on the NHS! What about children, babies, people with chronic and deblitiating illnesses treatment so they can live and have dignity - is bad?
Another upside of the NHS is that the government has more of a responibility to stop business causing people harm. McDonalds making people fat, drugs ruining peoples lives for generations, smoking! Smoking has been something the government has really cracked down on and its worked. Less people smoke=less people using NHS.

Well its nothing to do with me as I don't live in America but I hope you dont mind me having my "2 cents".
 
Thanks for the reply Beach.

While our population may not be growing as fast as it was thirty years ago, it is still increasing exponentially, meaning more people are inherently paying into the system (I still cringe at the misnomer: entitlements).

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. My parents had three kids together, while my Dad had a 4th with another woman, after my parents divorced. I have two kids of my own, and I also have 2 stepchildren. So I still don't see any population decline here. What is going on in Europe has no relevance in what's going on here. Although I think the US as a country could learn from our friends across the pond.

I also don't believe the projections being made about the Affordable Care Act, with regard to the cost. We will be saving boatloads of money by providing preventative care. We will also be reducing the cost of care by catching disease earlier, than we would if we were to stay on the current agenda.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, my cancer screenings, bone density scans, and other preventative procedures are covered 100% by Medicare. This means that I will have more money in hand to feed my children healthy meals, more money to pay my bills, and more money to put toward medical care that isn't fully compensated my Medicare. That alone is a terrific benefit!

I couldn't care less about the impact on Gub'mint spending, because I already don't agree with many of the things our Gub'mint spends our tax dollars on. For example: Military Nascar teams, overseas wars, military occupations, WMD's, TARP, challenges to constitutional law, challenges to gay marriage.. ad nauseum.

Naturally, we are going to be inundated with naysayers claiming that it is going to cripple the economy. These are the same people who are profiting on our suffering. Our politicians are included. I don't see any other first world country going broke due to healthcare. We are the ONLY first world country on the planet that doesn't offer universal healthcare. WHY? My best guess was just stated.
 
The reason we do not have universal health care is because of the AMA(American medical association) here in the states. If the health care system was regulated by the government, the hospitals would not be allowed to charge these exuberent amounts of money for tests and visits etc... The health insurance we have now has a $2,500 deductible for each family member! That is crazy. I even called the insurance company myself to ask why the rates and deductibles are so high. I was told it is because the hospitals and doctors are charging ridiculous amounts of money for things. IN example: for a half an hour doctors visit one of my doctors charged my insurannce $430. When my son had an MRI of his knee they charged $4000. I mean come on, this is outrageous!

We need this change. The Obamacare is a small step in the right direction, but it will be a long time I am afraid before things really start to look up. Oh, and here in the states when you go to the emergency room, you can sometimes wait over 10 hours!! This has happened to me before and in one of the best hospitals in Chicago! In any event, I believe that health care should be FREE for all everywhere!







 
Well I wish medical treatment was free! That would be nice. That is the problem, workers in healthcare do not work for free. Doctors, nurses, administrators, etc all want to be paid. We pay for our healthcare one way or another, directly or with third person as our current system is set up. We also will continue buying insurance. As is, government already covers around 50% of medical expenses in our country. Since Medicare and Medicaid came along medical expenses have exploded upwards in our country, not downwards. We already knew that the two government programs medical programs where going bust and needed adjusting. To suggest the new health care system is going to magically control costs would be to deny economic reality. Even the CBO has said so.

Last I checked the AMA was in favor of Obamacare, but already wanting to made adjustments. Drug companies like it also. They helped promote the law. From what I gather all the special interest groups like the new Healthcare law. They want a piece of the pie, to be included in what must be covered and how medicine is practiced in America.

"The AMA, A Key Backer Of Obamacare, Looks Into Reboot"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceja...-a-key-backer-of-obamacare-looks-into-reboot/

I thought this was a nice quote about the problem:

"Obamacare Killing Affordable Student Insurance"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....amacare-killing-affordable-student-insurance/

excerpt:

...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.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone mentioned the US' defense budget?

I mean, I'm not going to say that the US military is either Saint or Satan (and none of you do either, so let's not argue about it), because I just don't know... but it gets A LOT of money. Why is so much money being spent on military stuff, when you've still got such big problems in your own country.

(this actually makes me kinda think that the US military is on the more evil side of things, and had some scheme which was more important than it's people.)

:eek:

EDIT: WHY DOES : o PUT TOGETHER GIVE THIS FACE :eek: INSTEAD OF THIS FACE :blush:
 
I of course want everyone to have access to healthcare; it breaks my heart when people here can't get the care they deserve. However, we're putting an awful lot of trust in companies that have violated our trust time and time again. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), there are no caps in this bill for cost increases. Year after year my monthly insurance dues go up. I can't afford to pay more per month so I instead have to opt for less and less coverage. I'm now at a $7,000 deductible. Next year it might be a $10,000 deductible. A few years after that, a $15,000 deductible. I've been foregoing care because I can't afford it yet I have insurance. This, in part, is why insurance companies have had such record breaking profits the last few years. And with this bill, I'm forced to get insurance so the insurance companies have little reason to try and be competitive and entice me with great deals. In fact, since I have a preexisting condition, I'm sure they'll try to piss me off enough that I go to someone else and we all start playing insurance company roulette.

I'm glad everyone is "covered" but that doesn't mean healthcare is affordable. My guess is healthcare is only going to get less and less affordable but the insurance companies will continue to make more and more money since everyone is paying in. "Ok insurance companies, we'll give you more money than ever and you have to cover everyone you're going to be nice now, right?"

They sure are good at chess. I don't want to play anymore because the game is rigged. I was going to stop playing because my deductible got to the point that it's cheaper for me to just save the monthly dues, pay cash to my doctor who gives me a break as they love not having to deal with the insurance companies, and hope nothing too bad happens. A lot of people were starting to do this and this was the chink in the armor of the insurance companies. Now, I'm forced to play and the game just became much more complex and that weak spot in their armor is no more.

How bad does it have to get before Americans realize just how much we're being screwed?
 
It's not so much the insurance firms fault for the higher costs - even though I don't have much trust in them either. As the NYT's rticle mentions about the insurance firms, they appear to be ramping up insurance costs in order to meet coverage requirements for the new health care law. My insurance costs rose also, around 30% last year or maybe it was two years ago. The cost increase was not pleasant to see.

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. Costs will not decrease though. Obamacare requires plans, private, or through the state exchanges, to offer more medical services. And with more services comes higher costs. Every special interest group feels they need to be included in our medical insurance coverage essentially.

Here is a mention on how the system works:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577444410947791758.html

...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...
Click to expand...

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.

"What we can learn from Singapore's health-care model"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396.html

snippet from the article:

...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.
Click to expand...

Another article I liked from Gerri Willis.

"What Obamacare Will Mean for You"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/06/29/what-obamacare-will-mean-you
 
Beach said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
kiny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you provide an example in history where the same basic thing has happened (in the USA)?
 
David said:
Can you provide an example in history where the same basic thing has happened?
Click to expand...

No I can't, the US has been pretty much an exception to the rule in the West.

Is the government now responsible to cover a bigger part of the cost of crohn to society or is the change not that big than I assume?
 
The problem is that the only way costs will come down when the government is involved and there are private, for profit companies between the consumer and government, is for there to be price controls. And that isn't going to happen because our government is no longer for the people, by the people, it's for the corporations, by the corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.
 
David said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Here is the argument for why single payer might come about from the ObamaCare decision.

"ObamaCare decision may hasten the arrival of a single payer system"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/28/obamacare-decision-may-hasten-arrival-single-payer-system/
 
Yes, well, the influence of corporations is starting to worry me sometimes, well it's starting to worry me a lot. I dread landing on news sites when studying medications that talk about profits and stock prices instead of having good intentions. I dread the relationship between doctors and big pharma, don't know what to think about insurance companies. The government should step in and try to direct the money and research so that it benefits the people instead of the companies.
 
I work with a doctor and he is worried what benefits the insurance companies are going to stop covering to cut cost. I am worried they will not cover the biological drugs or will make an outrages copay. Speaking for those of us on these drugs I don't think anything would work after these.
There are a lot of good things about the aca but nothing to stop the insurance companies from cutting benefits also they can charge is four times what a well person is.
I think they moved to fast, didn't consult those effected. You thought it was hard getting a specialist appointment now just wait.
 
kiny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

"Ibd funding to be cut"

http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=33876&highlight=obama
 
That sucks beach, I heard that there was an "IBD day" introduced under Obama, so I thought he was on our side so to speak. I am really really crossing my fingers that research goes to something that is safe and sustainable for all, or hell, a cure why not, I think it's about time.
 
seebee said:
Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read up on it over the weekend.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cal1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Slim Johnson said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Getting something for "free" is always great right?
This is far from free and will be very restrictive on what
your Dr can do.

How many people really like their HMO?


Lauren
 
cal1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have read parts of the bill, while not reading it all.

I see nothing wrong with the above statement. Asking people to make educated decisions? What's wrong with that? Asking people not to believe what they see on TV? I see nothing wrong with critical thinking, maybe you do, and maybe that's why you are flaming me?

Railed against someone?? LOL. Really? Put on your big boy pants please.

Perhaps you should be more specific with what your issue is.. Rather than clutching at straws.:ysmile:
 
nogutsnoglory said:
My colonoscopy wasn't covered through private insurance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I have been in PT for approx. 19 months. Not 19 months straight, but in the last two years. What I have witnessed is that the folks on Medicare are being denied appropriate services. They are only allowed so many visits per illness or situation and most of the time, the visits are not enough. I have watched the personnel, including the OT & PT grimace in anguish as their hands are tied. They have been as creative as they can to meet their patients needs, but their hands are tied.

The majority of people in health care are in the field because they really do enjoy helping others.

Doctors have to either close up shop or merge with large hospitals in order to meet the dead lines and guidelines for automated medical records. Many doctors’ offices are currently in a shamble because of this. No one was prepared to "hurry up and automate records".

Doctors are leaving the medical field because they cannot afford to meet the new automated guidelines. They do not have the means to purchase all the necessary computers etc. Has anyone noticed that it is rare now to locate a doctor who runs his/her own office without having a slew of other doctors merged in with them?

Are you aware that if you need surgery or have an emergency that there will be government appointed personnel that are not health professionals making the decision as to what care you will be allowed to receive and what care you will be denied? They will be looking at you as a dollar sign not as a human being in need of medical care. What that means is this. If you arrive at the hospital and you need life saving surgery, you will have to wait for hospital personnel to contact a govt official to get approval for the surgery. If the govt personnel is on a coffee break for the remainder of the day, you're screwed. Plane and simple as that. You won't care about the health care system because you will be 12 ft under. Dead as a doornail.

Are you also aware that since most doctors’ offices have had to merge with hospitals, they now have to follow the hospitals rules not their rules. Your doctor will no longer be allowed to refer you to the doctor they think would be best for your situation, but the doctor that is affiliated with that hospital.

Has anyone noticed the increase in wait time just to get an appointment to see a doctor? As my PCP put it, she is always running behind because it takes so long for a patient to get an appointment for a simple matter that by the time they see her, they now have shortness of breath, chest pains and the list goes on. Now the doc who has the patient scheduled for a fifteen minute slot has to spend 45 minutes to an hour or more with one patient while everyone in the waiting room gets to sit around twiddling their thumbs for an hour or more.

Have you noticed how rushed doctors are now? It is almost impossible for them to give the quality of care they want to, and they do want to give quality care, because of time constraints. According to the new health care law, when you see a doc, the doc is supposed to input your visits into the computer right then and there. OK, now your doc has just become a secretary. Where is the time for your doc to give you the undivided attention you so desperately need and deserve? Do you see why docs are leaving the field? They signed up to be docs, not secretaries. They signed up to help patients and now their hands are being tied.

Are you aware that your primary care physician or general practitioner is rated at the bottom of the pay scale? Your PCP or GP is required to do the most work with the least pay.

Have you noticed that same day sick visits are becoming obsolete? Docs can no longer afford to leave same day sick visit time slots open. Those slots are now filled to overflowing. Docs are double and triple booked these days.

Your primary care doctor is expected to manage all your care. That includes co-ordinating your care with other specialist and talking on the phone with them. Oops! Where are they going to get the time to spend taking care of you when they are already double and tripled booked and have to be on the telephone? It is the rare office that budgets time slots for their docs to return calls. I've seen my PCP's stack of files to return calls to patients or other docs. I also know for a fact that even if she is scheduled to leave the office at 5pm, she often can't because of being double and tripled booked and trying to return only a small fraction of the mountain of phone calls. She has called me just before 10 pm because she knew it was an urgent situation. She does not get paid any extra for the five hours she had to stay at work to attempt to give quality care to patients. Her office is not the exception. Most docs office's are now being run this way.

Let's say you are considered a complicated medical patient. (Hmmm. Crohn's patients are complicated patients.) The office manager is in charge of making sure the most number of patients are seen that day. Your doc is out of the office and you need to be seen. The following really did happen to me. The office manager will tell you that you cannot have an appointment until the doctor gets back. Your care is too complicated and it would be unfair for another doc to attempt to get to know what your health care needs are. You can go to the ER if you need to be seen, but you are not getting an appointment in this office until your doctor gets back. But oh wait! Your doctor is double and tripled booked so there are no appoints with her till next month. What the He&*!!!!! You are now becoming very stressed out and that makes your health situation worse. So much for trying to watch those health care dollars. The cost to go to the ER is waaaaay more than the cost to visit your local PCP. I had to call my health insurance company to see if they would cover the ER visit. After explaining the situation to my health insurance co., they said it sounded like I was being forced to go to the ER and that I really didn't have any other choice. Four stressful days later, condition deteriorating, I finally relented and went to the ER. I was fortunate my health insurance co. covered the ER visit. I know of other patients in the same boat and their health insurance co. did not cover their ER visit.

Since I have been very involved with the health care system since my children were born, I have watched the level of care as well as the quality of care decline. The quantity of available care has also declined. Now toss in the govt to run the health care and what do we have? A horrific mess! The govt can't even properly run Medicare, how do Americans think the govt can or will run national health care? The special interest groups will rule the roost on that one. Dollars will speak. Not common sense.

I urge each and every one of you to read the health care bill for yourself. Don't rely on the news media or politicians to tell you what's in it. You will NOT get the true picture. The majority of the health care bill will hurt the majority of Americans.

Enough of my ranting and raving for now. Blessings, NL
 
My primary MD is extremely busy and that's why I have a list of questions when I go in so everything is answered. Also, I always bring an updated list of my new medications that other MDs put me on as well as any important inpatient hospitalizations. I do this for all of my doctors so everyone is on the same page. They truly appreciate what I do for them and in return, I get the care I need even in emergencies because they have everything.

Oh, when I did the medicaid billing for the hospital and clinic, it was a joke how much the state govt. reimbursed for welfare patients. Once this new health law goes into effect, the payments will NOT be the same as medicaids. It will be much lower, thus, many doctors will either retire early or just accept private pay or private insurance only and tell those with the new govt. coverage to find a clinic that accepts them.

Doctors do have a choice at least which insurance companies they want to deal with BUT if the reimbursements aren't reasonable enough where they can meet payroll, pay for rent, new medical equipment, etc. they can even send out letters to their current patients and tell them to go elsewhere or refer them to someone who does accept their insurance. My hematologist now refers her iron infusion patients to another facility because the insurances have been reimbursing at an extremely low rate and they were losing money so now we go to another hospital's clinic for that. I have a feeling this is what is going to happen in the long run.

I talked to all of my MDs and they reassured me that since I'm one of the few that are compliant, they won't drop me as a patient once my husband's company picks up the gov't insurance because they already told their employees that they will pay the fine. So much for us being able to keep our own doctors.(BO's LIE #1) (I'm lucky I can keep mine). Some of his coworkers have been told that they'll have to look elsewhere when the time comes as their physicians are not accepting the government payments as it's like a slap in the face for all of the hard work they've done to help others.

BUT if you are rich like those in government, you can afford a luxury health care plan that's goes above and beyond for their patients. must be nice.

i don't think it's fair to force people to take an insurance plan if they just can't afford it by penalizing them with a huge fine or throwing them in jail. Whatever happened to freedom of choice?? If they can't afford it, then what...fine them and then they'll be out of a home because they didn't choose a health care plan and now, the funds they did have went to paying a penalty?

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?

The insurance companies should be held accountable and threatened, not hard working people or people trying to make ends meet where they can't afford expensive coverage. Health insurance should be for everyone and not just the very rich.
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because stubbing your toe would go over the coverage provided by such a plan.

Health care is expensive. Too expensive for a REASONABLE family to easily afford, year in year out without gaps.

The only way that the 'insurance industry' can offer plans like that is if they were to, say, charge as a portion of income. Like in a single payer system.

Here's the thing, you get what you pay for, or in the case of private industry, you get what you pay for, minus the company's profits. With the number of people looking for health insurance being relatively stable, and the net migration to/from a given company being low, how on earth can insurance companies hope to offer revenue growth except by cutting costs or raising rates?

On the same side, how can price controls be brought in without being said to take away corporate accountability to shareholders?

There is NO ethical way to resolve this conflict. It's a goddamn hard choice that has to be made, and a goddamn hard DEBATE that has to be had. Not a war of words, nor a clever advertisement about how Government intervention is inherently evil, nor one about how the insurance companies are evil. It needs to be an intelligent, informed conversation.

I hate seeing the crap about 'oh there'll be government 'DEATH PANELS!'' Private insurance companies have a direct stake in seeing their costliest clients becoming non-clients. Read through this forum, or any other and see how people have to take days off to fight their way through private insurance red tape.

Sure there will be cost measures in single payer, obviously, but to put it in perspective, I have NEVER heard of someone being denied treatment due to cost. It may take a while for 'new' treatments to be approved, and at times there will be standards that aren't perfect such as biologics being approved for one year in many single payer systems, but it takes willful ignorance to state that the same things would not happen in private insurance.

Another book for you all

Nathan
 
Oh my!politics politics!!tut tut:) well..one thing I want to set straight..the prEsident and congress do have great health insurance..I have the very same one because it is a part of the federal government system!!i worked for Indian health service out west as a nurse so I certainly am not rich. I havent been se to work in ten years because of crohns, surgeries,etc.. The big dudes and dudettes in high levels of the fed govt get the same choices on that that I did,the housekeepers in the hospital are given,the curators for the smithsonian..so,yes,their salaries are huge up on the hill but not the benefits via the govt system..they're just good in general..
I WANT everyone to have health care coverage! If that means I pay more taxes,on a very limited budget..bring it on!!
 
Politics aside, I think the ACA is definitely a wonderful thing. The pre-existing condition part is HUGE for anyone with Crohn's. I also think that the tax credit for small business owners is great (my father owns his own independent pharmacy, a dying breed!). Clearly the healthcare situation we have right now isn't working, I am all for a change and while the plan may not be foolproof right now it's a step in the right direction!
 
In the last few months my insurance has doubled covers almost nothing and I have been refused my humira by my insurance company because of changes in healthcare! I have private insurance through blue cross blue shield and never had a problem before the healthcare "reform" started. Can anyone explain to me why if things are suppose to get better for us because I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to deal without humira or remicade! My medical bills from march til now are already about 6,000 I owe AFTER what my insurance paid!
 
Because you can't get something for nothing.
Someone will have to pay for this coverage- and
less will be covered. There will be people who
have no medical knowledge making your medical
decisions. I used to work for an HMO. It's not
pretty



Lauren
 
It is a complete joke!!!! I blame the Big Pharmacies! First off, they should NOT be charging the ridiculous amounts for medications!! That is highway robbery! I heard that some of the biologic meds can cost up to like $6000 for one infusion! That is disgusting in my opinion! Health care reform in my personal opinion would be FREE healthcare for all people! But of course that is not going to happen in the good ol greedy united states!
 
Ihurt..hey girl!:) I completely agree..big pharm rules the world of medical care. It's disgusting!and the biologics are that expensive without health insurance. I couldn't do it if I didn't have the insurance I have. Snd humira is $4000 a dose..I take it once a week so that's $16,000 a month without coverage! There's no way in hell anyone could sfford that! And he's, they have programs to assist those who can't afford it..or they help with copays. I just feel they have this monopoly on health care and wonder how much they affect laws on the hill. I question,too, the under utilization of medical marijuana. You know it has to be controlled by big pharm..here's a very cheap and by many accounts, effective treatment but its seen as evil!i can't use it because its illegal where I live but I've read many here who use it and do so well!
Also..low dose naltrexone..a very inexpensive treatment that I had never heard of until I came to this forum. I did discuss it with my gi doctor and she's open to it! I just feel they really have too much power! We do need universal health care in the USA..
 
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.
 
Late to the party, but I wanted to mention some points about why US healthcare costs are so high- these were not addressed with the ACA.

1) Lawyers. If you get sick and die in the US, your family would not have any trouble finding a lawywer who would sue the doctor's butt for malpractice. Whether or not the case wins is besides the point, all these lawsuits make costs go up, and it's a problem with the US legal system, not just healthcare

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.
 
I heard hospitals only pay around one third of what we wind up actually paying for the medications, diagnostic machines and supplies they use to treat us. And they just mark up terribly when it comes time to give us the bill for service. They are aggressive price-setters taking advantage of the poor and uninsured.:yfrown:


http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/27/prescription-for-waste-outraged-by-hospital-fees/?iref=allsearch/


Hobbes650 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
One does not "take advantage" of poor and uninsured. If you don't have any money to begin with, you can't be taken advantage of. Rather, It's abusing the system. Point is the same- costs are too high so services get cut and that hurts the poor and uninsured the most. To really help the poor and unsinsured the focus should be on reducing healthcare costs. A separate system for poor and uninsured should certainly be available, but that's not what the ACA is about.
 
Hospitals also are very often guilty of billing for things not given or done, everyone should go over the bills with a fine tooth comb. And pharmacuetical companies have too much power to set ridiculous prices and keep generics off the market.
 
CLynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

In my research, the Payment Advisory Board has no authority to make decisions about treatment methods or to deny individual people treatment. The board is made up of medical consultants to cut financial overhead and administrative costs within the hospital. According to Factcheck.org, the ACA, page 490, states that the board won't be able to make any recommendation to ration health care. Politifact.com gave this claim a "pants on fire" false claim, also reaffirming that "...there is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care."

If you're referring to something else or a new policy that would deny coverage, would you mind sharing? If ACA works the way it's been described to me, then the freedom for my hubby to never be denied coverage for treatment is my favorite part. If that's not true, I'd like to know. Thank you!
 
Newly, while I haven't researched it long and hard, I found a few sites about it. The one I post in this reply is the by far the most official seeming one, and although it does not outrightly say it's true, it also does not say it isn't, just mixes up the thought with other aspects related to senior health care. Believe me, having had Crohn's since my 20's, I too want insurance companies to not be able to deny for pre-existing conditions. And while I think that national plan CAN be a good thing, at my age, even this eternal optimist realizes that rarely are things what they are first made out to be, in total, if that makes sense, so I don't trust easily, especially our government, lol!

http://ourfuture.org/healthcare/healthreformfactcheck
 
I did read on after I pasted that link and found this....

PART D: WSJ: Comparative effectiveness research...is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. The cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla), Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) have all made a similar argument, see here.

TRUTH: Comparative effectiveness research in reality is not an attempt to implement QALYs used by countries such as Britain and Canada. Rather, as columnist Paul Krugman stated in his column July 24, "the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have also been emphasizing the importance of “comparative effectiveness research” — seeing which medical procedures actually work." Even conservative columnist David Brooks commended comparative effectiveness research as one of the ideas that "sounds good" in his column from the same day. Below is an explanation from the legislation's text of what comparative effectiveness research is, and its roll in fixing the nation's health care problems
 
It is a shame that the term 'Death Panel' was ever coined by Sarah Palin. It has created fear and scaremongering and stifled discussion on advanced care planing in the US. Is there nothing more humane than a person having the right to decide how they choose to spend their last months/days?

I work in palliative care and the distress I see so frequently by family members because they hadn't discussed 'things (wishes)' with Mum or Dad or another family member is heartbreaking. We have a system in place here for people to discuss Advanced Care Planning (A Living Will) with their GP but unfortunately is under utilised. These type of legal documents not only provide peace of mind for the patient, knowing that their wishes will be respected, but they also provide it for the family in what can be a time of great sorrow and distress.

There are aspects of healthcare here (Australia) that require government approval e.g. biologics (due to their cost). However, by and large, the healthcare of an individual is between the doctor and their patient. I find it surprising and confusing that members of this community are denied medication and tests by an insurance company that my GP writes a script or a referral for and I pop along to the pharmacy or the radiology centre and have the script filled or the test performed. Government isn't remotely interested in the day to day interactions of doctors and their patients.

That's my two cents worth! :lol:

Dusty. xxx
 
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!
 
Ihurt said:
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!
Click to expand...


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!













Hobbes650 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Ihurt said:
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!
Click to expand...



I agree 100% that the cost is completely outrageous. My last CT scan cost $11,000. Room and board cost me $1000 per day (my insurance only covers up to $350 per day). But I don't see the costs on the other side, and finding that part out is next to impossible in the US system. Fixing the cost issue is the most important thing we can do in the US, but currently we have our blinders on. The ACA is a expansion of the blinders and the cost is only getting worse. No rational person would expand gov't run healthcare under the current system, without first addressing the main reasons for the already high costs. That's the discussion that should be happening.
 
$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. :)
 
DustyKat said:
$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. :)
Click to expand...


I don't have the bill anymore, but that $11K could have been for when my doctor put the scope inside my ileum to look. I remember being shocked byut the scope cost and the CT cost. 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:
 
Hobbes650 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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 have to blame a lot of stuff on the hospitals. Here is the thing; if you walk in a hospital and say you are paying cash for lets say a CT scan. well you will likely be charged like $3000 or something like that. But when you have insurance, they will charge your insurnace company like over $8000. They do this to milk the insurance companies. I remember when my son was little I was paying cash for him to see his pediatrician. They charged me like $69 per visit. When I finally got insurnace that they accepted, I got my insurnace statement and noticed that they charged the insurance like $290. WTH!! That makes NO sense. They are scamming the insurance companies. This in turn is why I have a $2,500 deductible no doubt!!! The hospitals/doctors rip off the insurance companies and then the insurance companies stick it to us! It is so corrupt is stinks.

Oh, another thing here that I learned is that if you go to a facility that just does MRI's like the Open MRI establishments, you will pay WAY less for an MRI than you will if you have it done in the hospital. Unfortunately they did not offer MRE's at the Open MRI facility. Also, when I go to the open MRI facility, I only have to pay my $25 copay! If I do it in the hospital, it gets added to my deductible and I pay in the thousands!

Something does need to be done, but not sure what can be done. I mean there is so much corruptness and greed that I just do not see them changing anytime soon.
 
Maybe. Corruptness definitely. Not sure how you can call it greed when poor people are getting charged the same outrageous price as the wealthy- truly greedy people are smart enough to charge wealthy people more. But those in gov't will certainly tell you they need to protect you from greedy doctors and hospitals, that's a given. I'd also like to be protected from a greedy and corrupt gov't that wants to create more gov't jobs and higher gov't paychecks and pensions at the cost of the sick. The same common sense approach that's used in auto insurance could be applied to healthcare. Auto insurance is certainly not a perfect solution, but does offer some solutions that work to keep costs down. And then there's the other problem. Don't get me started on the lawyers and the cost of malpractice insurance. :)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

A
The Body and the Bedroom: An Exploration of Crohn’s Disease and Intimacy, Graduate Student Research (IRB #24-008)
Replies
0
Views
631
AdlerGraduateStudent
A
A
Loop ileostomy, active disease + rectal discharge
Replies
3
Views
982
Nadia96
N
K
Possible Crohn’s disease
Replies
10
Views
1K
musicalwiz
M
S
Professional tennis player ranked 84 in the world with Crohn's. How Muller Has Overcome Crohn's Disease To Face Djokovic At US Open
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jo-mom
Jo-mom
M
Muscle weakness and pain
Replies
2
Views
910
moose185
M

Latest posts

Back
Top