Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 15:44:13 GMT
You have to admit that the politics and economics of both are very similar and that communism is, in many instances a higher stage of socialism. They both share the economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. A far left socialist government does border on communism in many ways. Economics - yes politics - no and it doesn't help the discussion at all to ignore those fundamental differences and throwing the Soviet Union in this discussion. I also think we need to be extremely careful in taking snowsilver comments out of context. Her socialist society was specifically in response to @zingermack 's comment She did NOT say anyone who has universal health care is a socialist society - she may believe that, I don't know and won't speak to her. The ironic thing is that the UK's tax rates for upper income are not at all different than the US's upper tax bracket 45% versus 40.5% The difference in the tax codes is the middle brackets which are substantially higher 40% for those making more than 45,000 pounds (you'd pay closer to 25% in the US) So really you're paying for health care not through confiscatory taxes on wealthy individuals, but much higher taxes on the middle class - not socialist at all. She chose to call it socialized healthcare rather than universal healthcare and she hasn't come back to answer me when I posted this in reply to the above quote from her. Interesting that you consistently refer to universal healthcare as socialized medicine.......a political pejorative that has been defined to mean the government involvement in health care originally used in the 1930. The term socialized medicine was routinely used negatively by US conservative opponents of publicly funded health care who wished to imply it represented socialism, and by extension, communism.
Take it from me our Government has far less involvement in our healthcare,except to fund it, than any insurance company in the US has in your healthcare.
As for the taxes you mentioned, your federal taxes may be lower than ours but don't you also have state taxes to pay which we don't. We also have a far higher threshold than you do as to at what point in your income you start to pay income tax. But this wasn't about taxes it was about socialism as a political party, the assumption because Europe generally has an universal healthcare system that the countries of Europe have socialist government so therefore, it seems, they also have a say in the healthcare of its citizens. This is wrong, apart from paying for it ( which in fact is indirectly using out tax contributions to pay for it) the government has no say about anything regarding our access or treatment. Its based entirely by the opinion of your physician/or any other medical professional.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Sept 20, 2017 17:25:35 GMT
I want to see a budget estimate for universal healthcare. I would love to see an actual proposal with what costs would look like for all classes of people. I specifically work where I do because of the healthcare benefits and retirement benefits. I accept less income in exchange for good benefits. I am middle class. I spend about 5.2% of my gross income on healthcare premiums and my employer spends far more. Would I be willing to pay an extra 5.2% in taxes to have universal healthcare? Yes, I would. It would free me up also to consider other job opportunities where I might actually make more money. Do I think employers should also share in the burden of universal healthcare? Yes, I do. Just like they now contribute to my healthcare costs, I'd like to see all employers pay a percentage of their net income to be used for universal healthcare. I just wish a member of Congress would actually put together a proposal with budget estimates so I can feel like I am making an informed choice. I'm tired of the threats and rhetoric. If this passes, will it affect my healthcare? Probably not. Like I said, I have excellent coverage. But in order to get people like me who are most likely not affected by either Obamacare or this new bill on board with change, we have to see an actual proposal with what it might mean for us. There are passionate people on both sides of the debate. Then there are people like me, who most likely won't feel the effects and therefore lack passion about it. If you want to sway us either way, you have to put the hard data out there.
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Sept 20, 2017 17:42:07 GMT
Economics - yes politics - no and it doesn't help the discussion at all to ignore those fundamental differences and throwing the Soviet Union in this discussion. I also think we need to be extremely careful in taking snowsilver comments out of context. Her socialist society was specifically in response to @zingermack 's comment She did NOT say anyone who has universal health care is a socialist society - she may believe that, I don't know and won't speak to her. The ironic thing is that the UK's tax rates for upper income are not at all different than the US's upper tax bracket 45% versus 40.5% The difference in the tax codes is the middle brackets which are substantially higher 40% for those making more than 45,000 pounds (you'd pay closer to 25% in the US) So really you're paying for health care not through confiscatory taxes on wealthy individuals, but much higher taxes on the middle class - not socialist at all. She chose to call it socialized healthcare rather than universal healthcare and she hasn't come back to answer me when I posted this in reply to the above quote from her. Interesting that you consistently refer to universal healthcare as socialized medicine.......a political pejorative that has been defined to mean the government involvement in health care originally used in the 1930. The term socialized medicine was routinely used negatively by US conservative opponents of publicly funded health care who wished to imply it represented socialism, and by extension, communism.
Take it from me our Government has far less involvement in our healthcare,except to fund it, than any insurance company in the US has in your healthcare.
As for the taxes you mentioned, your federal taxes may be lower than ours but don't you also have state taxes to pay which we don't. We also have a far higher threshold than you do as to at what point in your income you start to pay income tax. But this wasn't about taxes it was about socialism as a political party, the assumption because Europe generally has an universal healthcare system that the countries of Europe have socialist government so therefore, it seems, they also have a say in the healthcare of its citizens. This is wrong, apart from paying for it ( which in fact is indirectly using out tax contributions to pay for it) the government has no say about anything regarding our access or treatment. Its based entirely by the opinion of your physician/or any other medical professional. I was of course speaking of universal healthcare which is frequently referred to as socialized medicine here. I absolutely do not believe that everyone who has universal care is a socialist society. Hope that clarifies.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 17:47:57 GMT
I want to see a budget estimate for universal healthcare. I would love to see an actual proposal with what costs would look like for all classes of people. I specifically work where I do because of the healthcare benefits and retirement benefits. I accept less income in exchange for good benefits. I am middle class. I spend about 5.2% of my gross income on healthcare premiums and my employer spends far more. Would I be willing to pay an extra 5.2% in taxes to have universal healthcare? Yes, I would. It would free me up also to consider other job opportunities where I might actually make more money. Do I think employers should also share in the burden of universal healthcare? Yes, I do. Just like they now contribute to my healthcare costs, I'd like to see all employers pay a percentage of their net income to be used for universal healthcare. I just wish a member of Congress would actually put together a proposal with budget estimates so I can feel like I am making an informed choice. I'm tired of the threats and rhetoric. If this passes, will it affect my healthcare? Probably not. Like I said, I have excellent coverage. But in order to get people like me who are most likely not affected by either Obamacare or this new bill on board with change, we have to see an actual proposal with what it might mean for us. There are passionate people on both sides of the debate. Then there are people like me, who most likely won't feel the effects and therefore lack passion about it. If you want to sway us either way, you have to put the hard data out there. Even if you don't have insurance through ACA, you can be affected by changes. I'm in the same boat as you in that I have great coverage through my employer, which was not impacted by ACA and I don't anticipate any changes, however I know that I can be impacted. One of these possible changes is the removal of prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits. That doesn't mean an insurance company will automatically do this and this could vary by state if they return all the control to the states - but it makes me nervous (especially for friends who are currently battling serious medical issues and a cap on benefits could devastate them both medically and financially). My husband and I also plan to retire early and with ACA we could afford to buy insurance even if we aren't employed, but if that option goes away, I'm not sure what we'll do. I realize this concern is minor compared to people faced with big medical issues, but just illustrating that even if I'm okay now, it doesn't guarantee anything in the future. I don't like health insurance being tied to employers so closely. I know that employment is not a guarantee, nor is my health, even if I'm okay now. I agree with you about having hard data available. It took over a year for the ACA to pass with numerous hearings, committees, amendments, input from industry, CBO, etc. They are trying to get this one passed before the end of September with hardly any discussion or information. It seems so much will be left up to the individual states and who knows what each state will choose to do. It seems risky to vote for something without any idea of what will replace it.
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Sept 20, 2017 18:10:21 GMT
So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. Hmm I wonder who needs the education? The Soviet Union was Communist, not Socialist. Yes, many countries now have popular Socialist parties- in fact, many in Europe are. In Europe, 'socialist' doesn't have the negative connotation that it does here- it's just considered a mainstream party. Here, they won't dare call themselves socialists. Too bad because that's pretty much what the Democrats are- why not embrace it if that's what you think? It's not an insult. I'm sure you're aware that to many Americans, that distiction is blurry, at best. And I disagree that European countries are socialist, some have had or has socialist Government in periods, or social democrat or conservative, but the countries are not socialist.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 18:41:41 GMT
I want to see a budget estimate for universal healthcare. I would love to see an actual proposal with what costs would look like for all classes of people. I specifically work where I do because of the healthcare benefits and retirement benefits. I accept less income in exchange for good benefits. I am middle class. I spend about 5.2% of my gross income on healthcare premiums and my employer spends far more. Would I be willing to pay an extra 5.2% in taxes to have universal healthcare? Yes, I would. It would free me up also to consider other job opportunities where I might actually make more money. Do I think employers should also share in the burden of universal healthcare? Yes, I do. Just like they now contribute to my healthcare costs, I'd like to see all employers pay a percentage of their net income to be used for universal healthcare. I just wish a member of Congress would actually put together a proposal with budget estimates so I can feel like I am making an informed choice. I'm tired of the threats and rhetoric. If this passes, will it affect my healthcare? Probably not. Like I said, I have excellent coverage. But in order to get people like me who are most likely not affected by either Obamacare or this new bill o$3n board with change, we have to see an actual proposal with what it might mean for us. There are passionate people on both sides of the debate. Then there are people like me, who most likely won't feel the effects and therefore lack passion about it. If you want to sway us either way, you have to put the hard data out there. About $2.5 trillion a year. Bernie said $1.4 trillion, but others who looked at his Medicare for all plan estimated between $2.4 and 2.8 trillion. The total budget last year was $3.8 trillion and Medicare (which covers about 17.6 million seniors) was $612 billion. California looked at implementing universal coverage and the estimate for just California residents was $400 billion - which would double the state budget. Colorado actually put a bill on the ballot for universal coverage with a corresponding 2x tax rate hike - it was rejected.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Sept 20, 2017 18:53:49 GMT
"Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue. My husband and I are two healthy adults. Yet, we must pay $1200 per month for insurance and have deductibles of $4000 per person meaning we will likely never meet the deductibles in the absence of a major accident or illness. Year after year, we are paying the government over $13,000 for insurance that does us absolutely no good. I'm sorry, but why should we have to pay for insurance at these astronomical rates so that you (general you) can obtain insurance at a reasonable cost for your major illnesses? Someone above said "life isn't fair" to justify my having to pay; but let's turn it around. Life isn't fair can also apply to situations like yours. And if there is a single payer system, we'll still be paying for you (at least those who pay no taxes). I'm tired of "life isn't fair" being used to steal my hard-earned dollars for the benefit of others. Why are you saying that your insurance never did you any good? It is called insurance for a reason. Many people have insurance on their homes or cars and they never use it, but it is there in case of emergency. Just because you didn't "use it" because you don't have a major illness doesn't mean it didn't do you any good.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 18:56:09 GMT
I'd like to better understand the breakdown of where health care money currently goes. I'd like to better understand costs, areas we can target to reduce spending, how we can be more efficient, addressing underlying issues, etc. I feel like to make changes to get where we need to be - both in coverage and cost - we need to think about drastic changes in our health care models. All the talk of ACA, repeal, Medicare for all, etc. focus on insurance - but does nothing to address costs, how us as consumers can do better, or underlying problems that contribute to health issues.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 19:03:46 GMT
I'd like to better understand the breakdown of where health care money currently goes. I'd like to better understand costs, areas we can target to reduce spending, how we can be more efficient, addressing underlying issues, etc. I feel like to make changes to get where we need to be - both in coverage and cost - we need to think about drastic changes in our health care models. All the talk of ACA, repeal, Medicare for all, etc. focus on insurance - but does nothing to address costs, how us as consumers can do better, or underlying problems that contribute to health issues. I'll see if I can dig up a few studies I read a while back. Not surprisingly end of life care and chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease) management are the biggies.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 19:05:33 GMT
I'd like to better understand the breakdown of where health care money currently goes. I'd like to better understand costs, areas we can target to reduce spending, how we can be more efficient, addressing underlying issues, etc. I feel like to make changes to get where we need to be - both in coverage and cost - we need to think about drastic changes in our health care models. All the talk of ACA, repeal, Medicare for all, etc. focus on insurance - but does nothing to address costs, how us as consumers can do better, or underlying problems that contribute to health issues. I'll see if I can dig up a few studies I read a while back. Not surprisingly end of life care and chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease) management are the biggies. Planet Money did a good episode on end of life directives and how it greatly reduces end of life care costs, which are big.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 19:17:53 GMT
John Harwood...
“Trump adviser Moore on unfairness of the healthy subsidizing the sick: "people want insurance for their own families, not other peoples' "
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot lately. Problem is tomorrow these healthily people could be facing a major illness. And then they could be priced out of buying insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 19:26:37 GMT
I'll see if I can dig up a few studies I read a while back. Not surprisingly end of life care and chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease) management are the biggies. Planet Money did a good episode on end of life directives and how it greatly reduces end of life care costs, which are big. Unfortunately it's political hot potato in this country. We are just not a society that accepts that death is inevitable. I have unfortunately been through the process too many times and it takes way, way too long to talk about the quality of life and introduce palliative and hospice options. Joe Klein wrote an article way back in 2012 which resonated with me and my experiences: time.com/735/the-long-goodbye/
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 19:32:37 GMT
John Harwood... “Trump adviser Moore on unfairness of the healthy subsidizing the sick: "people want insurance for their own families, not other peoples' " I’ve seen this sentiment a lot lately. Problem is tomorrow these healthily people could be facing a major illness. And then they could be priced out of buying insurance. In the past few years it seems we've seen a rise in the attitude of "I got mine, don't give a crap about yours". People either think the entitlements they get aren't really entitlements or think they are somehow more deserving. And I find it very frustrating that people don't seem to understand how insurance works. You don't just buy it when you need it. I don't wait until I have a car accident to buy car insurance or wait until that tornado hits my house to get house insurance. That is not insurance - that is some kind of benevolent philanthropic organization that you've never contributed too handing you money when something bad happens. It's one thing if you legitimately can't afford health insurance - I get that - affordability is a big problem for many people. But it's another when you can pay and simply don't want to, get mad that the government is making you buy something, or say you don't want to spend money on something you don't need. Over my adult lifetime my family has probably contributed much more in insurance plans than we've gotten out (minus my daughter swallowing that damn rock and the subsequent 30k helicopter ride), but I consider myself lucky that I've never had to really use my insurance. And heaven forbid I ever have to, I'm thankful I have it.
|
|
|
Post by prolificcrafter on Sept 20, 2017 19:35:59 GMT
Hmm I wonder who needs the education? The Soviet Union was Communist, not Socialist. Yes, many countries now have popular Socialist parties- in fact, many in Europe are. In Europe, 'socialist' doesn't have the negative connotation that it does here- it's just considered a mainstream party. Here, they won't dare call themselves socialists. Too bad because that's pretty much what the Democrats are- why not embrace it if that's what you think? It's not an insult. If by socialist, you mean there is no private ownership of property and that all wealth is shared among the people by a government, no many in Europe are not. All the countries that you seems to believe are socialist are inhabited by populations that decided, through their elected representatives, to have higher taxes in exchange for better social services, health being a priority. But most of their jobs and most of their economy are based on the private sector. They have social policies, but their economy is still primarily based on free enterprise. Most of Europe come into the above category........that isn't socialism. And if you look further into the US government both Republican and Democrat neither are completely free of socialism either. Nobody said in a socialist society there is no private ownership. That would be communism. In a socialist economy, taxes will go up the most for the middle and lower classes- for the top whatever percent it isn't that different. I know in the Scandinavian countries, for example, pretty much everyone pays taxes (unlike the United States; where there is an income threshold.) Not so in countries that provide universal healthcare. That's ok, actually that's ok with me- I'm willing to go to Universal healthcare as long as everyone contributes.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 19:36:57 GMT
pudgygroundhog From the CDC: While prescription drugs aren't insignificant at 324.6 billion, they're dwarfed by hospital services 1.036 trillion and physicians 635 billion. Page 331 here: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#094Edited to try and fix formating to show that sum of the numbers are a sum of those below, it may be easier to just find in report.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 19:38:02 GMT
Planet Money did a good episode on end of life directives and how it greatly reduces end of life care costs, which are big. Unfortunately it's political hot potato in this country. We are just not a society that accepts that death is inevitable. I have unfortunately been through the process too many times and it takes way, way too long to talk about the quality of life and introduce palliative and hospice options. Joe Klein wrote an article way back in 2012 which resonated with me and my experiences: time.com/735/the-long-goodbye/ Hmm, the link didn't work for me (got an error message). I think if we want to get serious about making real changes in health care, we have to get over our issues with discussing and planning for death. I am fortunate that I have not yet been through the process like you have, but have witnessed friends going through this and agree that the talks about quality of life and such take too long to get to. This is the Planet Money episode: The Town that Loves DeathAnd I think it was This American Life or Radiolab that did a good episode on quality of life, medical treatments, and all those thorny questions. It was a lot of good food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 19:42:10 GMT
Unfortunately it's political hot potato in this country. We are just not a society that accepts that death is inevitable. I have unfortunately been through the process too many times and it takes way, way too long to talk about the quality of life and introduce palliative and hospice options. Joe Klein wrote an article way back in 2012 which resonated with me and my experiences: time.com/735/the-long-goodbye/ Hmm, the link didn't work for me (got an error message). I think if we want to get serious about making real changes in health care, we have to get over our issues with discussing and planning for death. I am fortunate that I have not yet been through the process like you have, but have witnessed friends going through this and agree that the talks about quality of life and such take too long to get to. This is the Planet Money episode: The Town that Loves DeathAnd I think it was This American Life or Radiolab that did a good episode on quality of life, medical treatments, and all those thorny questions. It was a lot of good food for thought. The site is throwing in a random extra / if you delete it in your tool bar you can read. Thanks for the article. podcast. ETA - thanks for the podcast, I'll listen when I get a chance.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 19:50:47 GMT
pudgygroundhog From the CDC: While prescription drugs aren't insignificant at 324.6 billion, they're dwarfed by hospital services 1.036 trillion and physicians 635 billion. Page 331 here: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#094Edited to try and fix formating to show that sum of the numbers are a sum of those below, it may be easier to just find in report. That report has tons of interesting info -- rates of death (although heart disease is still number one, I didn't realize it had dropped as much as it had from 1975), birth rates by age (I knew women overall were having kids later, but pretty significant drops in births from age 15-24), breakdowns for risk factors, etc.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 20:00:55 GMT
Hmm, the link didn't work for me (got an error message). I think if we want to get serious about making real changes in health care, we have to get over our issues with discussing and planning for death. I am fortunate that I have not yet been through the process like you have, but have witnessed friends going through this and agree that the talks about quality of life and such take too long to get to. This is the Planet Money episode: The Town that Loves DeathAnd I think it was This American Life or Radiolab that did a good episode on quality of life, medical treatments, and all those thorny questions. It was a lot of good food for thought. The site is throwing in a random extra / if you delete it in your tool bar you can read. Thanks for the article. podcast. ETA - thanks for the podcast, I'll listen when I get a chance. That's a great article. So we can put Geisinger doctors in charge of health care? I like their model.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 20:15:56 GMT
Well, my DH just called and told me our new premium rates came in and for our family of 4--an increase of $1,800 year, which puts us at just about $1,750 a month. We went with an HMO, with no deductible but we have to go to our primary physician for everything first for a referral. We'll gladly do that because the premium for the PPO was at about $2,000/month with a $5,000 per person deductible.
My DH said comparable coverage under ACA for us was near $2,000 a month.
What the fuck!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 20:18:34 GMT
And can I add that our new premiums are now more than our mortgage?
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 20:35:14 GMT
Well, my DH just called and told me our new premium rates came in and for our family of 4--an increase of $1,800 year, which puts us at just about $1,750 a month. We went with an HMO, with no deductible but we have to go to our primary physician for everything first for a referral. We'll gladly do that because the premium for the PPO was at about $2,000/month with a $5,000 per person deductible. My DH said comparable coverage under ACA for us was near $2,000 a month. What the fuck! I'm sorry you saw a big increase. Where do you think $1750 for a family of four falls on the scale? My insurance costs (medical only) for my daughter and me is around $810 a month - although most of that is subsidized by my employer. I have a PPO plan with lower premiums, but a much higher deductible and out of pocket maximum. My husband carries his own insurance through his employer so that is additional $ each month for our family total. I don't know how my plan compares across region/employer negotiated rates/etc.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 20:42:29 GMT
The site is throwing in a random extra / if you delete it in your tool bar you can read. Thanks for the article. podcast. ETA - thanks for the podcast, I'll listen when I get a chance. That's a great article. So we can put Geisinger doctors in charge of health care? I like their model. There's a lot to like. I think more than anything we have to talk about what patients actually WANT before they're incapacitated and actually consider, life not just death. Your podcast teared me up a bit as a family member was very much like the man who just kept saying stop. Unfortunately too often as family members we allow ourselves to believe they'll get better - that the pain and suffering is worth the extra month or week or day because WE aren't ready to say goodbye. It's hard. It's really, really hard to be the one to say stop.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 20:49:30 GMT
That's a great article. So we can put Geisinger doctors in charge of health care? I like their model. There's a lot to like. I think more than anything we have to talk about what patients actually WANT before they're incapacitated and actually consider, life not just death. Your podcast teared me up a bit as a family member was very much like the man who just kept saying stop. Unfortunately too often as family members we allow ourselves to believe they'll get better - that the pain and suffering is worth the extra month or week or day because WE aren't ready to say goodbye. It's hard. It's really, really hard to be the one to say stop. Like I said - I haven't been in that position - but I can only imagine how hard it is. It's one thing for many of us to say "just pull the plug! I don't want to live like that" - but where do you draw the line and I assume it's completely different when you are actually in the situation and trying to weigh factors of quality of life and questioning whether you are making the right decision or not. The discussions surrounding these issues are important - ensuring somebody dies with dignity and family members having some guidance during a difficult time, but also for the costs involved. It sounds crude to worry about finances at a time like that - but it is relevant.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 20:52:29 GMT
And I really liked in that article with the Geisinger doctors how they looked for ways to improve their care and outcomes and also reduce cost. Things like having doctors take a Bedside Manner 101 class and this eventually leads them to having those candid discussions, instead of avoiding them and simply doing another costly, unnecessary test or procedure. Or how having a nurses as case managers helped reduce return hospital visits. We really have to look at different models of care if we are going to make significant changes in health care.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 22:33:07 GMT
Well, my DH just called and told me our new premium rates came in and for our family of 4--an increase of $1,800 year, which puts us at just about $1,750 a month. We went with an HMO, with no deductible but we have to go to our primary physician for everything first for a referral. We'll gladly do that because the premium for the PPO was at about $2,000/month with a $5,000 per person deductible. My DH said comparable coverage under ACA for us was near $2,000 a month. What the fuck! I'm sorry you saw a big increase. Where do you think $1750 for a family of four falls on the scale? My insurance costs (medical only) for my daughter and me is around $810 a month - although most of that is subsidized by my employer. I have a PPO plan with lower premiums, but a much higher deductible and out of pocket maximum. My husband carries his own insurance through his employer so that is additional $ each month for our family total. I don't know how my plan compares across region/employer negotiated rates/etc. I'm not sure how we compare across region, etc. either. We always had a PPO, and about 6-7 years ago the PPO premiums skyrocketed. Also, our PPO never had deductibles. Now, it just makes no sense financially for us to pay the higher premium, plus the deductible, and then I think coverage goes to 80/20 just to be able to skip the primary care referral with the HMO. I know prices go up, but this is actually getting scary financially. How much more can people eek out per month? How much can people continue to cut here and there just to cover medical? I'm really confused how the ACA can cost more.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 0:18:36 GMT
In a country w/o universal coverage, you only have "good healthcare" FOR NOW. Until you lose a job, or get a devastating diagnosis (if higher premium pre-existing coverage is reinstated) or until you have a terrible accident (if there are lifetime maximums reinstated).
Until we go to non-profit, single-payer where we all take care of each other and those with the most (like, you know on their 2nd yacht or 3rd villa) contribute much more, we are all one diagnosis or disaster away from being dropped from coverage, priced out of coverage, medically bankrupted and/or denied treatments.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Sept 21, 2017 0:21:20 GMT
I want to see a budget estimate for universal healthcare. I would love to see an actual proposal with what costs would look like for all classes of people. I specifically work where I do because of the healthcare benefits and retirement benefits. I accept less income in exchange for good benefits. I am middle class. I spend about 5.2% of my gross income on healthcare premiums and my employer spends far more. Would I be willing to pay an extra 5.2% in taxes to have universal healthcare? Yes, I would. It would free me up also to consider other job opportunities where I might actually make more money. Do I think employers should also share in the burden of universal healthcare? Yes, I do. Just like they now contribute to my healthcare costs, I'd like to see all employers pay a percentage of their net income to be used for universal healthcare. I just wish a member of Congress would actually put together a proposal with budget estimates so I can feel like I am making an informed choice. I'm tired of the threats and rhetoric. If this passes, will it affect my healthcare? Probably not. Like I said, I have excellent coverage. But in order to get people like me who are most likely not affected by either Obamacare or this new bill o$3n board with change, we have to see an actual proposal with what it might mean for us. There are passionate people on both sides of the debate. Then there are people like me, who most likely won't feel the effects and therefore lack passion about it. If you want to sway us either way, you have to put the hard data out there. About $2.5 trillion a year. Bernie said $1.4 trillion, but others who looked at his Medicare for all plan estimated between $2.4 and 2.8 trillion. The total budget last year was $3.8 trillion and Medicare (which covers about 17.6 million seniors) was $612 billion. California looked at implementing universal coverage and the estimate for just California residents was $400 billion - which would double the state budget. Colorado actually put a bill on the ballot for universal coverage with a corresponding 2x tax rate hike - it was rejected. 2.5 trillion seems really high to me. Between my employer and myself my premium is around $17000 per year. Extrapolating based on Medicare costs would be futile as seniors have more health problems than the young person would. So I'm not sure you can make an accurate statement based on the cost of Medicare.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 21, 2017 1:01:04 GMT
About $2.5 trillion a year. Bernie said $1.4 trillion, but others who looked at his Medicare for all plan estimated between $2.4 and 2.8 trillion. The total budget last year was $3.8 trillion and Medicare (which covers about 17.6 million seniors) was $612 billion. California looked at implementing universal coverage and the estimate for just California residents was $400 billion - which would double the state budget. Colorado actually put a bill on the ballot for universal coverage with a corresponding 2x tax rate hike - it was rejected. 2.5 trillion seems really high to me. Between my employer and myself my premium is around $17000 per year. Extrapolating based on Medicare costs would be futile as seniors have more health problems than the young person would. So I'm not sure you can make an accurate statement based on the cost of Medicare. Just to be clear, these are not my estimates. 4 different organizations graded bernies plan when he ran for president. I'm sorry I can't link as I'm on my phones.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:33:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 2:33:11 GMT
Trump blocked a woman w/ stage 4 cancer. "...under Graham-Cassidy, a 40-year-old diagnosed with metastatic cancer “could expect to pay a $140,510 surcharge on their annual health premium, effectively making many families choose between being bankrupted by their insurance company or being bankrupted by their hospital bills.
“I cannot afford and I suspect most people cannot,” Packard said. Asked about how being blocked by Trump makes her feel, Packard said, “I just wish that he would listen.” “ He said [during the campaign] he would come up with something that was great and was going to cover everybody, and [Republicans] keep coming up with bills that are the exact opposite,” she added. “He’s definitely not listening to me now.”.. “I appreciate the sympathy, but what I need is affordable, comprehensive health insurance,” she said.”"
|
|