|
Post by #notLauren on Jun 9, 2018 1:46:51 GMT
So what makes your husband's entitlement to coverage more compelling than my friend's right to get coverage? I refuse to vote for anything that will allow Obamacare and it's provisions to stand So is your friend paying $867 per month or per year? Because both are a bargain if it isn't subsidized. I'm not sure why you think that's so high? It's a lot cheaper than pretty much any group plan we've had. So what's your plan? Chaos? What's the republican plan? Oh yeah, they still don't have one. This a problem for the entire US and needs to be dealt with. So you think that European universal plans aren't perfect? My Canadian, British, and French friends are thrilled with their programs. The only ones I hear complaining about them are Americans in order to justify the lack of their own. I consider health care a right, not an entitlement. Your foreign friends are "thrilled"? Funny, I see many Canadians coming over the border to get health care they don't want to wait for in Canada. Children's hospitals here contain many cancer patients from England and the EU who would rather pay for care here than wait for the systems back in Europe. I can match you anecdotal evidence one for one. For every person you tell me is thrilled, I'll tell you of one who can't get the care they need.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jun 9, 2018 1:48:49 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better. You're trying to prove your point in a very futile way. ...the bolded part - THAT IS SIMPLE NOT TRUE.I can't be bothered to discuss the others with you,I could if I so wished and would have a very valid answer to all of them but there's no point in doing so. Our health cover isn't under discussion here. You're right. All of these well respected journalists from well respected news organizations are wrong and you are right, because you and you alone know everything about the English health care system.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jun 9, 2018 1:49:59 GMT
This is the system we have. To all of a sudden push everyone to Medicare with out stepping back and figuring out to do it correctly will do nothing but cause chaos. Make the necesssry changes to the ACA and then figure out how to successfully make the switch to Medicare for all. A couple of things that need to be taken into condideration is if you can put the insurance companies are pushed out what happens to the people who work for the insurance companies as the majority only write health care insurance. Most will cease to exist. Bernie in his white sheet explaining how to make this work thought since the framework for the administrating Medicare was all ready in place it should be easy to include all Americans. Really? Off the top of my head I don’t know how many of us old folks are currently in Medicare but I know it’s no where near 320M. So how is the current system going to easily absorbe 100’s of millions more people? That’s just two things that need to be dealt with first. I’m not an expert, but my thought is that insurance wouldn’t be completely free for people, even with universal healthcare. I think some people think the government would have to just “find” all that money to cover all expenses. But that isn’t the case. We would pay towards premiums in the form of higher taxes, right? But IMO, if done well, and health insurance is no longer for profit, we would be paying less than what most are now, but get better coverage. The people in other countries pay higher taxes, but they get a much better bang for their buck than we do here with everybody fending for themselves. Collectively we are paying WAY more than what people in other countries pay, for a patchwork, piecemeal system that doesn’t even cover everyone. If there was a way to shift what we’re paying now into a single system, a lot could be saved just by cutting out much of the administration and duplication. Bottom line is we’re already paying more and getting less, while at the same time the the health care and pharmaceutical businesses are raking in record profits hand over fist.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 17:58:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 2:19:01 GMT
This is the system we have. To all of a sudden push everyone to Medicare with out stepping back and figuring out to do it correctly will do nothing but cause chaos. Make the necesssry changes to the ACA and then figure out how to successfully make the switch to Medicare for all. A couple of things that need to be taken into condideration is if you can put the insurance companies are pushed out what happens to the people who work for the insurance companies as the majority only write health care insurance. Most will cease to exist. Bernie in his white sheet explaining how to make this work thought since the framework for the administrating Medicare was all ready in place it should be easy to include all Americans. Really? Off the top of my head I don’t know how many of us old folks are currently in Medicare but I know it’s no where near 320M. So how is the current system going to easily absorbe 100’s of millions more people? That’s just two things that need to be dealt with first. I’m not an expert, but my thought is that insurance wouldn’t be completely free for people, even with universal healthcare. I think some people think the government would have to just “find” all that money to cover all expenses. But that isn’t the case. We would pay towards premiums in the form of higher taxes, right? But IMO, if done well, and health insurance is no longer for profit, we would be paying less than what most are now, but get better coverage. . I forgot I have supplemental insurance to go with my Medicare. So it makes sense if there is Medicare for all they might/would need a supplemental policy to round out the coverage. Well forget the part about the insurance people losing their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 9, 2018 2:59:10 GMT
I’m not an expert, but my thought is that insurance wouldn’t be completely free for people, even with universal healthcare. I think some people think the government would have to just “find” all that money to cover all expenses. But that isn’t the case. We would pay towards premiums in the form of higher taxes, right? But IMO, if done well, and health insurance is no longer for profit, we would be paying less than what most are now, but get better coverage. . I forgot I have supplemental insurance to go with my Medicare. So it makes sense if there is Medicare for all they might/would need a supplemental policy to round out the coverage. Well forget the part about the insurance people losing their jobs. Medicaid is typically better coverage than Medicare, and they pay providers a little more as well. I think there would still need to be a lot of employees, but their jobs may look different. Just taking the profit out of health insurance would save a lot of money.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 17:58:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 10:01:18 GMT
You're trying to prove your point in a very futile way. ...the bolded part - THAT IS SIMPLE NOT TRUE.I can't be bothered to discuss the others with you,I could if I so wished and would have a very valid answer to all of them but there's no point in doing so. Our health cover isn't under discussion here. You're right. All of these well respected journalists from well respected news organizations are wrong and you are right, because you and you alone know everything about the English health care system. Lets get one thing clear: I've never insisted that the British way is better and it is not " free". We pay for it through our taxes. Our rate of tax that is needed to cover the healthcare is a tiny fraction of the amount that you pay for health insurance. You, and you alone without any experience of the system or the knowledge of how the system works is the only person that is trying to make that comparison based on reading a post on an alternative way of funding healthcare. So you have proof that all these patients pay for their own care because of the wait rather than because the treatment is not available here? Perhaps you'd care to share the " many" you have with everyone. That would be in the millions if you're comparing it to the people that are "thrilled" with our healthcare system. I can only base my reply on the UK not on all EU countries.Where are your links to the so called evidence for the "many" from the UK?. Yes, there are patients that go out to the US for treatment that isn't always available here for a number of reasons in the same way that we have non UK citizens coming here. One of those reasons patients from the UK go to the US is, very often, the treatment is still in its experimental stage. Typical of this in the past has been Proton therapy in its early stages. That has been addressed, we have a Proton Therapy treatment centre of our own now. Another reason is that clinical diagnosis has proven that the outcome would still be the same with or without treatment as in the case of this little boy. His cancer returned seven months later this time in his spine. To date, he's in remission having been on a clinical trial here in the UK to keep the cancer at bay. Another example of someone going to the US but guess who paid for it.......our National Health Service. This year I was diagnosed with cancer at 20 and sent to America by the NHS Poignantly, the patient points out this..... "While waiting for a coffee to be made here in the US, a cleaner approached me asking if I had cancer (I mean, it’s pretty obvious). Her 19-year-old son also had cancer and was being treated a couple of hours away. She was tirelessly working four jobs to help cover the costs that weren’t included in her son’s health insurance and, because of that, couldn’t afford to visit him"Your sarcasm precedes you! Whilst I have never maintained that I know everything about our health care system, I sure as heck know more about it as a recipient of a system that has been successful for 70 years than someone who just happens to find a few articles in the media in an attempt to prove her point. I reiterate, this thread isn't about who's system is the " best". It's about an alternative way to the system you have now, where people are dying or facing bankruptcy, because they can't afford to pay for their healthcare.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 17:58:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 0:12:34 GMT
Here they come again.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 17:58:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 14:07:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Oct 11, 2018 14:36:24 GMT
Trump is delusional. And what’s even worse is how many people believe all the complete and utter nonsense that spills from his pie hole.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Oct 11, 2018 14:44:48 GMT
NHS overwhelmed; waiting times increasingsurgery waiting numbers highest in years. NHS is under threatAnd this article states that while Brits love the NHS, people have to wait an average of 60 days to begin cancer treatment, non-emergency patients can wait 18 weeks to be admitted to the hospital. It's actually a pretty decent discussion of the differences between the US and Britain. The way I read these articles is that there just isn't enough doctors, nurses, staff or hospitals to deal with the health care of the English people in today's world. The US has a problem with people lacking the financial means for care and the English have a problem with the availability of care even though its "free". I just don't see how you can insist that the British way is better. Those same wait times happen all over the US with our current system. 6–12 month waits to see specialists are normal in many parts of the US
|
|
|
Post by lbp on Oct 11, 2018 14:55:48 GMT
ACA is awesome IF you can afford the insurance premiums! Many, many can't. My company prints medical statements for a hospital. People who do not have insurance still get healthcare and hospitalization when needed. Financial Assistance writes off millions per year in unpaid medical bills.
We still have insurance for now though I have gotten our renewal and it is 22% higher than last year. That means that for me and my husband, who had zero medical problems this year( Thank God) we will pay $1200.00 per month and that is with my company paying half of mine. There is a 4500.00 deductible with a 9000 per year max out of pocket. It does have a good prescription card though I have found that GoodRx is sometimes cheaper. Many of our employees will not even to to the doctor because they can't afford the office visit. There is no co-pay, everything goes to the deductible.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 11, 2018 15:05:28 GMT
Yep! I’ve been posting all over social media what the shady Republicans are up to and what they are voting for behind the scenes. Most political ads here have the republicans attacking democrats saying they’re getting rid of ore existing and Medicare, when in fact it’s the republicans voting against it and trying to dump it. I wish all tv ads for political campaigns had to be fact checked first—right now the Republicans like that they can MAKE BASELESS CLAIMS AND TELL OUTRIGHT LIES which then need a legal order/suit filed in court to get the lying ads off the airwaves. So much for the “innocence before guilt” that they use only when convenient for them. IOKIYR
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Oct 11, 2018 19:18:33 GMT
If pre-existing coverage is not guaranteed, I will have no way to get health insurance. None. I'm 48. I've had 7 surgeries on my jaw in my lifetime and I will have to have more because it's not a problem that goes away with surgery. I have asthma, daily medicine and inhalers. I've had breast cancer/mastectomy and have a cancer gene that not only causes breast cancer, but other related cancers (ovarian, kidney...). These 3 ongoing issues will preclude me from health insurance. Additionally I have major depression and anxiety/panic disorder; both requiring daily meds and therapy often.) I am 48. I work for the public and as such, get paid as a government worker. My 'fantastic retirement' is slowly eroding. At this rate, I'll be working until I'm in my 80's to survive.
|
|
|
Post by chlerbie on Oct 11, 2018 20:41:41 GMT
This would be something that would effect me. After nearly 20 years of not needing any doctor care at all, this last year has been multiple visits, physical therapy, and finally a back surgery. Because there's a 25% chance of recurrence, it is now a pre-existing condition. I would not have gotten better without surgery and now I will need to worry that if this happens again in the future, I'll instead be forced to live with horrific pain.
While the ACA was not perfect, the pre-existing clause is of huge benefit and there is NO reason, other than greed that it should be removed.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 11, 2018 21:08:47 GMT
Yep! I’ve been posting all over social media what the shady Republicans are up to and what they are voting for behind the scenes. Most political ads here have the republicans attacking democrats saying they’re getting rid of ore existing and Medicare, when in fact it’s the republicans voting against it and trying to dump it. I wish all tv ads for political campaigns had to be fact checked first—right now the Republicans like that they can MAKE BASELESS CLAIMS AND TELL OUTRIGHT LIES which then need a legal order/suit filed in court to get the lying ads off the airwaves. So much for the “innocence before guilt” that they use only when convenient for them. IOKIYR I wish they had to be fact checked, too. The ones I have been seeing make me want to throw something at the TV. They are saying things like our candidate for governor wants to make our state a sanctuary state, the democrats want to "raid the trust fund (Medicare and SS) and create lots of debt by making Medicare for all, etc. It is maddening. They apparently appeal to the 6 year old mentality, since my 6 year old has made comments about various candidates based on what he sees on TV.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Oct 11, 2018 23:38:00 GMT
Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care. Insurance companies are already reducing the amount they will pay for services. I don’t know if it is just in MN, but BCBS and probably others have reduce the amount they will pay for outpatient therapy services by about 35%. That is in the last year, since trump took office. That's not true in all cases. I just finished outpatient physical therapy. I have BCBS. They paid 100% of my treatment.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 11, 2018 23:44:45 GMT
Insurance companies are already reducing the amount they will pay for services. I don’t know if it is just in MN, but BCBS and probably others have reduce the amount they will pay for outpatient therapy services by about 35%. That is in the last year, since trump took office. That's not true in all cases. I just finished outpatient physical therapy. I have BCBS. They paid 100% of my treatment. I'm referring to what they consider to be the allowable amount that they will pay to providers. For example. They used to pay about $120 for a service, and now pay about $80. I don't know how that equates to the consumer. These cuts most likely affect the providers first, then the consumers because if the providers can't afford to stay in business, there will be less options. The services I am referring to are mental health services.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Oct 12, 2018 0:43:29 GMT
I wish they had to be fact checked, too. The ones I have been seeing make me want to throw something at the TV. They are saying things like our candidate for governor wants to make our state a sanctuary state, the democrats want to "raid the trust fund (Medicare and SS) and create lots of debt by making Medicare for all, etc. It is maddening. They apparently appeal to the 6 year old mentality, since my 6 year old has made comments about various candidates based on what he sees on TV. I know, right? The fear mongering in some of the ads targeting the Democrats in the Cities is way over the top and totally untrue. So annoying.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 12, 2018 1:29:58 GMT
Those who think the ACA was a bad bill don’t know what they are talking about. When you look at all the components it actually was pretty good. It gave the people the health coverage they needed. Even though they might not realized it. Minimum coverages, no policy limit, and no pre-existing illness exclusions. The problem was in the individual markets and the fact they didn’t anticipate the number of sick people that would want coverage. THAT is why some had big spikes in their premiums and THAT is why some areas lost markets. Sick people. As to those “lies” about premiums, if you like your plan & doctor. 1. In theory if there are more healthy premiums mixed with sick premiums it averages out lower. In some areas there were more sick premiums than healthy premiums so it didn’t work out as theorized. Given time it could have. 2. The “you can keep your plan” only applied IF the insurance companies didn’t change any of the terms and conditions of that plan. T&C can be something as simple as changing a deductible. And changing the T&C is what many of the insurance companies did to push people into the new plans that cost more.3. Same thing about if you like your doctor you can keep him. That only applied if the company continued to offer a plan that included your doctor. If you are wondering why President Obama didn’t FORCE the insurance companies to keep “your plan” or “your doctor” in place it’s because that is not what our government does to businesses. Besides they already agreed to removing limit caps and the pre-existing condition exclusions. And even before the ACA, insurance companies were always changing their plans so the plan and doctor you had today could be gone tomorrow. The irony of this was just before the election I read an article that said the individual markets/premiums were starting to stabilize. Which meant that what ailed the ACA could have been fixed pretty easily. But what we are going to have now is chaos. Less choices, higher premiums, and substandard coverage. He really shouldn't have said that. It was one of the few mistakes made over the ACA, IMO, that and ceding to the republicans that people could pay a penalty and instead of being covered. For insurance to be effective and affordable, everyone has to pay in, whether they are using it or not. The 10 essential health benefits that HAD to covered under the ACA, often weren't under those plans that people had previously and liked. So they couldn't be sold anymore, simply because they were not ACA compliant. I work in insurance and as much as I was behind the ACA, I cringed a bit when he said that, knowing that likely wouldn't be the case, for most people. The terms and conditions HAD to change, because the benefits that now HAD to be covered, HAD to change under ACA.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 12, 2018 1:35:44 GMT
Still waiting for that amazing plan he promised during his election....tapping foot...
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Oct 12, 2018 2:33:01 GMT
Still waiting for that amazing plan he promised during his election....tapping foot... I hope you’re not also holding your breath because I’m pretty sure you’ll pass out waiting!
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Oct 12, 2018 13:31:23 GMT
Maybe that’s what he talked about with Kanye and Kid Rock yesterday after the press left?
|
|
|
Post by kamper on Oct 12, 2018 21:45:23 GMT
As long as medical care is for-profit, costs are going to continue to rise. It's going to be extremely hard, if not impossible, to move healthcare to non-profit. Yup. My problem with ACA is that it is not single payer. Having for-profit companies in the equation is NEVER going to result in lower costs. As for how to pay for it, a start would be to repeal the giant tax reduction that was just given to corporations. Then I would look at the science behind some of the tests and procedures that are recommended. I'm convinced that many things are ordered just because, insurance will pay for them. Insurance should only be for unexpected things i.e. car wrecks, your house burning down. If you are human you will need medical care. You shouldn't need insurance to pay for this.
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,977
Jun 25, 2014 20:22:13 GMT
|
Post by huskergal on Oct 12, 2018 23:08:27 GMT
Call me a heartless bitch, but I wish every person who thinks that pre-existing health conditions don't have to be covered by insurance, to get some illness or condition that was through no fault of their own.
No one should go bankrupt because of a health condition.
My daughter was diagnosed with MS when she was 15 so to anyone who thinks she should have to pay outrageous premiums to be covered, my response if fuck you!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Oct 12, 2018 23:21:51 GMT
That's not true in all cases. I just finished outpatient physical therapy. I have BCBS. They paid 100% of my treatment. I'm referring to what they consider to be the allowable amount that they will pay to providers. For example. They used to pay about $120 for a service, and now pay about $80. I don't know how that equates to the consumer. These cuts most likely affect the providers first, then the consumers because if the providers can't afford to stay in business, there will be less options. The services I am referring to are mental health services. On my plan, it helps. If they negotiate a lower cost of service, that's all the vendor will charge me.......assuming I haven't met my deductible.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 13, 2018 4:43:21 GMT
I'm referring to what they consider to be the allowable amount that they will pay to providers. For example. They used to pay about $120 for a service, and now pay about $80. I don't know how that equates to the consumer. These cuts most likely affect the providers first, then the consumers because if the providers can't afford to stay in business, there will be less options. The services I am referring to are mental health services. On my plan, it helps. If they negotiate a lower cost of service, that's all the vendor will charge me.......assuming I haven't met my deductible. Right. But what I am saying is that in the end, providers may not be able to continue to provide the service so the lower cost to you may be a trade off and next time that service won't be as easy to find. People are always complaining about not being able to get mental health care but lowering the amount paid to providers won't help that. The insurance companies benefit the most.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 13, 2018 4:45:03 GMT
Call me a heartless bitch, but I wish every person who thinks that pre-existing health conditions don't have to be covered by insurance, to get some illness or condition that was through no fault of their own. No one should go bankrupt because of a health condition. My daughter was diagnosed with MS when she was 15 so to anyone who thinks she should have to pay outrageous premiums to be covered, my response if fuck you! I often wonder what they are thinking when they make these decisions. So many people have pre-existing health conditions, or will in the future. Do they just think they are invincible or what?
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Oct 13, 2018 14:10:41 GMT
I've said this a million times too. But I will do it again. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF FOR-PROFIT layers e.g., hospitals, drug cos, testing cos, doctors groups, at every step in the system. Pull the profits OUT of the system - insurers, providers, drug cos, testing cos, etc. and we will be able to bring our costs more in line than Canada, France, UK and others. Even if you take out profits it still comes down the cost of providing the care. Are you going to tell those who work in the medical field they have to take less in salary and benefits? No. Are you going to tell those who push medical technology that they need to take less for their medical device instruments or drugs even though it may have taken them years and millions of dollars to arrive at the new drug or medical instrument ? Yes. I wouldn't allow them to charge more in the US than they do in other developed countries, like they do now to pad their profits. Are you going to tell hospitals they can’t buy state of the art equipment to use in their hospitals? To some degree, yes. In major metro areas, hospitals are tripping over themselves to one-up each other on the latest, greatest equipment. This results in an overcapacity which does nothing to increase care but a lot to increase costs. Medical equipment dollars would be better spent by (again, we're talking metro areas, not the only hospital for 50 miles) designating one the cardiac center, and they're the only ones who need to buy the latest and greatest, but others can still do some more basic levels of testing and treatment. Do the same thing for oncology, burn centers, plastics, etc. - just like is already done for pediatrics. Not every facility needs to have the best of the best in every specialty area, and when they try to, it increases the costs for everyone, everywhere.IMO too many people are getting hung up at “profits” and not looking at the total cost of health care.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,739
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Member is Online
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Oct 13, 2018 16:15:31 GMT
Call me a heartless bitch, but I wish every person who thinks that pre-existing health conditions don't have to be covered by insurance, to get some illness or condition that was through no fault of their own. No one should go bankrupt because of a health condition. My daughter was diagnosed with MS when she was 15 so to anyone who thinks she should have to pay outrageous premiums to be covered, my response if fuck you! I often wonder what they are thinking when they make these decisions. So many people have pre-existing health conditions, or will in the future. Do they just think they are invincible or what? It is also preventing/having people second-guess getting diagnosed. For example, there is a hereditary sickness in families. Some diseases do not show themselves until much later in life. People are intentionally not getting diagnosed to avoid the pre-existing condition label. I know someone who did get a diagnosis when Obama-care came into being. Thinking was it was "safe" now. Not so much now and feels quite threatened.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 17:58:05 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 4:55:05 GMT
Remember, remember, come early November!
|
|