Health care (Moved from Obama vs Romney poll)...

[Testing]

mom2many: I agree with you here. The real power, imo, is really in the house and senate.

No, the real power is in the behind-the-scenes money that elects the members of the house and senate. You don't think this is really done by the American people putting forth the best candidates, do you?

Follow the money. We have known since the 1930's - though it was not admitted until the late 60's/early 70's- that tobacco product consumption causes cancer. But...it's still legal and freely available.

Why? Big money controls who gets elected, and there is big money in the tobacco industry.

Here's an interesting little article that came up first in googling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/wa050898.htm[/URL]

We could go on all day. Banks were "too big to fail" because big money controls those interests and directs politicians.

If people want real change they need to look closer to home and take a much better look at who they are putting into those two houses.

It makes no difference whatsoever. If you want real change, become Bill Gates or marry into one of top 100 wealthiest families.

I am pretty much a liberal democrat. Does that mean I always vote that way? No, I look at the over all package and then make a choice. Right now, outside of economy, the biggest issue that concerns me is 'Obama Care'. The loss of this for my family can mean the difference between Ted getting his med's and Ted not getting his Med's. When you are looking at $1,500 a month for three med's it's not hard to see why that is a concern for me.

Once upon a time, my sister needed meds that cost $400 a month - and my Mom made 400 a month. But....insurance covered things then. It all worked out.

Obamacare has changed insurance to a self-funded plan, where you get a discount if you have a plan through the more well known insurance companies, like Anthem. It's perfect. You pay tens of thousands a year to the company; your office either matches (or you pay even more on your own). Then, in exchange for your tens of thousands, you get a bit of a discount on your major medical issues, and, as a bone tossed to the consumer to make him think he is getting something, a well visit every year and a few other, mostly unnecessary things. If you have a major illness and end up hospitalized, be prepared to pay thousands out of pocket above and beyond your "health care savings" that you have funded. Meanwhile, the insurance company makes sure to rake in billions of dollars in profit, while denying what it can, and overcharging in coverage for what it cannot deny.

Example: prior to switching to this plan, a brief hospitalization and surgery last year incurred $50,000 in bills. All but $6,000 was paid,and that $6,000 came straight out of our pockets. That cost would have been over $10,000 out of pocket (and in network) this year, due to the changes the insurer made in anticipation of Obamacare.

It's the perfect racket.

So again, as of now because Of demographics and the fact that individually my vote means little in this election. I will not be voting...that's another thing I think needs to be looked at.

Oh, I always vote, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it does anything. Now if I become a multi-billionaire anytime soon, I might be able to buy some politicians to push through my pet legislation, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have lived long enough to know there is nothing new under the sun and that my skepticism is fully justified.

Click Here For Original Thread

 

[akmom]

Obamacare has changed insurance to a self-funded plan, where you get a discount if you have a plan through the more well known insurance companies, like Anthem. It's perfect. You pay tens of thousands a year to the company; your office either matches (or you pay even more on your own). Then, in exchange for your tens of thousands, you get a bit of a discount on your major medical issues, and, as a bone tossed to the consumer to make him think he is getting something, a well visit every year and a few other, mostly unnecessary things. If you have a major illness and end up hospitalized, be prepared to pay thousands out of pocket above and beyond your "health care savings" that you have funded. Meanwhile, the insurance company makes sure to rake in billions of dollars in profit, while denying what it can, and overcharging in coverage for what it cannot deny.

Well-put. "Obamacare" (which is just a rip-off of Romneycare - a tactic which Obama criticized ruthlessly in the 2008 debates, then copied when he took office) doesn't solve for anything. Insurance has always been available (and remains unaffordable for many). The only thing that has changed is a company's ability to deny you a policy, which could have been avoided in the past by simply purchasing the plan before you needed it. Trying to purchase a plan after you incur a preexisting condition is really just trying to get something for nothing. We didn't need a mandate to address that behavior. It's a free country! The elephant in the room is that health care is expensive. When we try to diffuse the costs into oblivion, it just falls right back on us in the form of higher premiums, taxes, fees or whatever source we use to fund it. A privatized system with a 20% profit margin just guarantees 20% inefficiency. Worse than a self-pay system, single-payer system, or voluntary insurance.

 

[mom2many]

No, the real power is in the behind-the-scenes money that elects the members of the house and senate. You don't think this is really done by the American people putting forth the best candidates, do you?

No, obviously I don't, it's about who has the money behind them to get them where they need to be.

Follow the money. We have known since the 1930's - though it was not admitted until the late 60's/early 70's- that tobacco product consumption causes cancer. But...it's still legal and freely available.

Why? Big money controls who gets elected, and there is big money in the tobacco industry.

Here's an interesting little article that came up first in googling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/wa050898.htm[/URL]

We could go on all day. Banks were "too big to fail" because big money controls those interests and directs politicians.

No argument there.



It makes no difference whatsoever. If you want real change, become Bill Gates or marry into one of top 100 wealthiest families.

It can make a difference. Enough people, enough changes and you will see a difference, but people have to be willing to look outside their own little political parties.


Once upon a time, my sister needed meds that cost $400 a month - and my Mom made 400 a month. But....insurance covered things then. It all worked out.

Oh, I absolutely could get Teds his med's...on tax payer dollars. He qualifies, and at one point we had him on it..took 6 months of jumping through hoops to get it. You want to know what happened during that time, when he wasn't getting his meds. He slipped into his own little manic world, he was one step away from a mental hospital. Do you know the first thing always cut when talking about state medical..the mental health community. That's why as soon as Obama's plan went into effect we put him back on our plan.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like every aspect of the health plan, but I also can't believe that this country can't come up with a solution that is viable for everyone that makes sure everyone can and does get the healthcare they need.


Obamacare has changed insurance to a self-funded plan, where you get a discount if you have a plan through the more well known insurance companies, like Anthem. It's perfect. You pay tens of thousands a year to the company; your office either matches (or you pay even more on your own). Then, in exchange for your tens of thousands, you get a bit of a discount on your major medical issues, and, as a bone tossed to the consumer to make him think he is getting something, a well visit every year and a few other, mostly unnecessary things. If you have a major illness and end up hospitalized, be prepared to pay thousands out of pocket above and beyond your "health care savings" that you have funded. Meanwhile, the insurance company makes sure to rake in billions of dollars in profit, while denying what it can, and overcharging in coverage for what it cannot deny.

Example: prior to switching to this plan, a brief hospitalization and surgery last year incurred $50,000 in bills. All but $6,000 was paid,and that $6,000 came straight out of our pockets. That cost would have been over $10,000 out of pocket (and in network) this year, due to the changes the insurer made in anticipation of Obamacare.

Well our plan hasn't changed, only our carrier.

It's the perfect racket.



Oh, I always vote, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it does anything. Now if I become a multi-billionaire anytime soon, I might be able to buy some politicians to push through my pet legislation, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have lived long enough to know there is nothing new under the sun and that my skepticism is fully justified.

Neither have I, I just prefer not to waste my time...

 

[mom2many]

Well-put. "Obamacare" (which is just a rip-off of Romneycare - a tactic which Obama criticized ruthlessly in the 2008 debates, then copied when he took office) doesn't solve for anything. Insurance has always been available (and remains unaffordable for many). The only thing that has changed is a company's ability to deny you a policy, which could have been avoided in the past by simply purchasing the plan before you needed it. Trying to purchase a plan after you incur a preexisting condition is really just trying to get something for nothing. We didn't need a mandate to address that behavior. It's a free country! The elephant in the room is that health care is expensive. When we try to diffuse the costs into oblivion, it just falls right back on us in the form of higher premiums, taxes, fees or whatever source we use to fund it. A privatized system with a 20% profit margin just guarantees 20% inefficiency. Worse than a self-pay system, single-payer system, or voluntary insurance.

Not everyone develops a condition later in life. Some are born with one, my DD was born with Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney. Makes her high risk and when we went from one company to another the insurance put up a bit of a fuss. The company had to force the issue in order to make sure they would cover her. We have never not had insurance, except a brief month when Aiden was 2 and wouldn't you know it..he broke his arm.

When people are picking between what they need and medical insurance their immediate needs are going to come first.

 

[cybele]

We have never not had insurance, except a brief month when Aiden was 2 and wouldn't you know it..he broke his arm.
.

How do kids know to do that? Seriously.

We switched from a general private insurance to a government employee plan when it was introduced as my husband is employed by local government, and in the two month "layover period" Azriel came off his bike and snapped his two front teeth.

I wanted to cry when I got the dental bill for that, we do have public health here, but dental isn't covered and I have never had to pay full price for dental before, as health cover has always covered a large portion of the cost, and I never want to have to do it again.

He did have to wait to get his fake teeth though, I wasn't doing that without insurance.

 

[akmom]

Not everyone develops a condition later in life. Some are born with one, my DD was born with Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney. Makes her high risk and when we went from one company to another the insurance put up a bit of a fuss.

Yes, but if you were insured when she was born, then you get to add her to your policy regardless of her health. And as long as you keep her insured, her condition can never become "preexisting" - even when switching carriers - because there are laws governing that. Perhaps those laws needed strengthened, or better enforced, or even just better communicated to individuals so they know their rights. I think all states participate in Medicaid for children without insurance, and that makes them considered "insured," unless of course parents don't bother to enroll them or don't qualify and choose not to buy insurance for their kids. I don't have a problem with that choice per se, but it does present a problem for the child who, upon turning 18, becomes an uninsured person with a preexisting condition. (My husband was an uninsured child who had to wait 6 months to be eligible for his company's health plan after starting his first job; I had no waiting period at all because my parents kept me insured under their plan until the day I was married.) So there was definitely some room for improvement, but that could have been achieved with minor legislation.

When people are picking between what they need and medical insurance their immediate needs are going to come first.

Unless you pass a law preventing them from making those priorities. By law, I don't have to eat, but I do have to buy health insurance (whether or not I want it or ever use it). I mean, you can make a case for a lot of things. But in the end, shouldn't an individual - rather than government - be able to choose what they need (with all the consequences)?

Frankly for me, if I had saved up all my premiums that I had ever spent on health insurance (minus the little contributions insurance has made over the years), I'd have enough to almost afford a transplant myself. So really, it's a waste. And if I ever do need a transplant, the deductible and co-payments are going to bankrupt me anyway. There's not much in it for me personally.

 

[NancyM]

Unless you pass a law preventing them from making those priorities. By law, I don't have to eat, but I do have to buy health insurance (whether or not I want it or ever use it). I mean, you can make a case for a lot of things. But in the end, shouldn't an individual - rather than government - be able to choose what they need (with all the consequences)?
.

I think a lot of the problem occurs when individuals become ill and don't have medical insurance. Basically they go to the ER where they fill out forms for Medicaid to pay the bill. At that point they are so ill that the bills are very high.

If an individual has medical insurance to begin with (even if they don't want it) and we know there are some medical insurances available that are next to nothing to afford, say medicaid, they would more likely be taking advantage of preventive medicine (getting regualr mammo's, physicals, flu shots, ect..) . If they don't feel well they will go to a doctor right away and nip it in the butt.

Even though we taxpayers foot the bill for medicaid, it would cost less to us if people already carried it, and than got sick, than it would if a person never sees a doctor because they have no insurance, than waits to the very last minute when they are ill and have to be admitted to a hospital. Yes they still get medicaid but the cost of their illness is higher because now they need to be tested for everything that they never got tested for before, at hospital fees.

The reason why they are forcing it is to make people pay for part of their health care , so the government doesn't have to.

Money is always the bottom line. They don't care about our health.

 

[bssage]

Ok peeps. I am just going to make my disclaimer here so I dont have to keep repeating myself. These are my OPINIONS. With the exceptions where I state something like "It has been my experience" (because those are my facts) Just so you know I am not presenting my arguments as fact. They are not.

Once upon a time, my sister needed meds that cost $400 a month - and my Mom made 400 a month. But....insurance covered things then. It all worked out.

Once upon a time your mother paid nothing for your sisters meds??

a bone tossed to the consumer to make him think he is getting something, a well visit every year and a few other, mostly unnecessary things.

Well visits and the other things are unnecessary? I think its really the point. A ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure thing.

Example: prior to switching to this plan, a brief hospitalization and surgery last year incurred $50,000 in bills. All but $6,000 was paid,and that $6,000 came straight out of our pockets. That cost would have been over $10,000 out of pocket (and in network) this year, due to the changes the insurer made in anticipation of Obamacare.

This example sounds like political rhetoric. Where specifically did this information come from?

It's the perfect racket.

And was more perfect without over-site.

Insurance has always been available (and remains unaffordable for many). The only thing that has changed is a company's ability to deny you a policy,

It is one of the main changes. Not the only change.

which could have been avoided in the past by simply purchasing the plan before you needed it. Trying to purchase a plan after you incur a preexisting condition is really just trying to get something for nothing.

Can I have a preexisting condition I was unaware of?

We didn't need a mandate to address that behavior.

Because we can count on people to do the right thing?

A privatized system with a 20% profit margin just guarantees 20% inefficiency. Worse than a self-pay system, single-payer system, or voluntary insurance.

This evaluation is from where?

Not everyone develops a condition later in life. Some are born with one, my DD was born with Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney. Makes her high risk and when we went from one company to another the insurance put up a bit of a fuss. The company had to force the issue in order to make sure they would cover her.

Any chance this could have not been identified at birth and later identified as a preexisting condition?

We have never not had insurance, except a brief month when Aiden was 2 and wouldn't you know it..he broke his arm.

How do kids know to do that? Seriously.

We switched from a general private insurance to a government employee plan when it was introduced as my husband is employed by local government, and in the two month "layover period" Azriel came off his bike and snapped his two front teeth.

Had three days between my cobra ending and Railroad ins taking effect. Put my arm through a stuck window. I think it was 3k at a time when I really had no money.

When people are picking between what they need and medical insurance their immediate needs are going to come first.

And really its not stupid people making stupid decisions. Its people looking at wants vs needs. evaluating risk, ect I.E. I am young and healthy do I really need this? Or do I want this? How great is my risk? ect. This is why the volunteer system would fail. You could have a lot of good smart people making well thought out decisions who end up on the short side if the dice roll. As we get older our view of the risk evolves. But do you think a 25 yr old is concerned with heart attack? Think of it like this. You know the roof needs replaced. Its leaking damaging the interior of your house. A immediate health hazard for the entire family. Should I replace my roof? Or make sure I have extended term complete care facilities included with my insurance.

Yes, but if you were insured when she was born, then you get to add her to your policy regardless of her health. And as long as you keep her insured, her condition can never become "preexisting" - even when switching carriers - because there are laws governing that.

A couple of examples on how your insurance can lapse above. Its is a very common and easy trap to fall into. Should I have paid the bill to keep the lights on: or Extended my coverage for those three days?

I think all states participate in Medicaid for children without insurance, and that makes them considered "insured," unless of course parents don't bother to enroll them or don't qualify and choose not to buy insurance for their kids.

Sounds simpler than it is (for me at least) We had to take Chloe to IA City for two days to have her evaluated and get an official diagnoses. This included missed time from work: lodging: Meals: ect at a time when we were struggling just to pay the bills. For us it wasn't a matter of signing a few papers.

Unless you pass a law preventing them from making those priorities. By law, I don't have to eat, but I do have to buy health insurance (whether or not I want it or ever use it). I mean, you can make a case for a lot of things. But in the end, shouldn't an individual - rather than government - be able to choose what they need (with all the consequences)?

No, First you do have to eat. If you dont the cops will pick you up (our cost) haul you butt to a hospital (our cost) jam a feeding tube down you throat (our cost) and keep you for observation (our cost) Assign a caseworker (our cost) and maintain ongoing evaluations (our cost) so please dont stop eating. Second if people could be counted on for that we would not be having this discussion. And (refer to previously posted comments) But the people you cant count on are not all irresponsible worthless layabouts. They are people like us who are either short on knowledge or resources.

Frankly for me, if I had saved up all my premiums that I had ever spent on health insurance (minus the little contributions insurance has made over the years), I'd have enough to almost afford a transplant myself. So really, it's a waste. And if I ever do need a transplant, the deductible and co-payments are going to bankrupt me anyway. There's not much in it for me personally.

Aint that the truth.

I think a lot of the problem occurs when individuals become ill and don't have medical insurance. Basically they go to the ER where they fill out forms for Medicaid to pay the bill. At that point they are so ill that the bills are very high.

My experience was not that simple.

If an individual has medical insurance to begin with (even if they don't want it) and we know there are some medical insurances available that are next to nothing to afford, say medicaid, they would more likely be taking advantage of preventive medicine (getting regualr mammo's, physicals, flu shots, ect..) . If they don't feel well they will go to a doctor right away and nip it in the butt.

Hence the well visits and other "unnecessary" things. I think this is something I read on the forum that other countries have correct. I have seen a lot about the prenatal care, well baby visits ect from our non-US counterparts.

Even though we taxpayers foot the bill for medicaid, it would cost less to us if people already carried it, and than got sick, than it would if a person never sees a doctor because they have no insurance, than waits to the very last minute when they are ill and have to be admitted to a hospital. Yes they still get medicaid but the cost of their illness is higher because now they need to be tested for everything that they never got tested for before, at hospital fees.

And I believe that is the point

The reason why they are forcing it is to make people pay for part of their health care , so the government doesn't have to.

Again another point

Money is always the bottom line. They don't care about our health.

Always

Insurance is a gamble. Its a gamble that we are betting against ourselves. I'm gonna bet 50 bucks a month that I will have a heart attack. Another 50 that my wife might. 60 bucks says one of the kids will break their leg. How can you win this gamble? And to make thing worse. Most of us know its bad to gamble. And even though we dont normally call it that. We know thats what insurance is.

I dont think the Obama plan is "winner winner tv dinner" but I think it was a start. I think Romney is telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear. He seems to change his position to suit his audience. No detailed plans of how he is going to achieve this great deed. I prefer details. I do like the libertarian plan. But I think its unrealistic. I dont think its possible to make the changes that would need to be made. And unlikely much of it could be done in four years. There are a number of things I see on the libertarian platform that I am ok with. But there are just as many that give me pause.

 

[Jeremy+3]

Ah, you should just all move to the UK.

Incidentally I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco, even with medical insurance it is cheaper for her to fly to the UK to receive medical treatment, pay for a hotel and then fly back to the states than it would be to pay the co-pays on her breast cancer treatment, she also receives better treatment as here we use a far more individual approach than any of the hospitals in her area.

 

[mom2many]

Any chance this could have not been identified at birth and later identified as a preexisting condition?

In my dd's case and in my cousin's, with the same condition (although not blood related) it was discovered during the ultrasound. It is very hard to miss, think grapes, that's what it looks like in place of a kidney. Hence Multi-cystic.

However, I do what you are asking and can give you a great example. My cousin's mom, grew up having quite a few kidney infections and UTI's, but not above board or enough to make the doctors look further. Then she got pregnant, and her kidney issue's went through the roof.

Turns out she had a kidney defect that would have been there at birth, something to do with the little duct and the kidney not emptying right. Low and behold, a reasonably healthy woman now is serious condition because of a missed birth defect.

Did they have insurance? No, they were youngish and saw no need, plus up until now visit were not an issue.

It got expensive though, and being farmers money was tight. They decided to apply for state medical. Yeah, that wasn't going to happen, why? Because on paper, they look good. Sell the columbine, but then how do they cut the alfalfa? Sell the work truck, but then how do they get the equipment moved. Sell off some cattle, okay done, but then what next year. The only answer was to become a burden to the state. Instead of helping a working family, it makes more sense to make them completely dependent.

No hospital or doctor would touch them without payment up front. No follow-ups, no surgeries nothing with out cash in hand.

They are fine now, but it took filling bankruptcy to dig themselves out of that hole.

Sounds simpler than it is (for me at least) We had to take Chloe to IA City for two days to have her evaluated and get an official diagnoses. This included missed time from work: lodging: Meals: ect at a time when we were struggling just to pay the bills. For us it wasn't a matter of signing a few papers.

Oh my gosh, the hoops are crazy. When Ted was younger and I was looking for more help and more resources. There isn't a lot out here and money was tight. i actually had to file an appeal and go before a judge. He was denied because he could tie his shoes and take moderate care of himself. He was 8. He has it now, but we had to do a lot of hoop jumping.

Had three days between my cobra ending and Railroad ins taking effect. Put my arm through a stuck window. I think it was 3k at a time when I really had no money.

That's about what ours cost and that was on a sliding scale.

And really its not stupid people making stupid decisions. Its people looking at wants vs needs. evaluating risk, ect I.E. I am young and healthy do I really need this? Or do I want this? How great is my risk? ect. This is why the volunteer system would fail. You could have a lot of good smart people making well thought out decisions who end up on the short side if the dice roll. As we get older our view of the risk evolves. But do you think a 25 yr old is concerned with heart attack?

They don't they are invincible! That's why we have kept them on ours, it doesn't change our premium. One kid or fifty and it stays the same, it's also cheaper for us to keep them there. Samantha's, just for her at her job is as much as ours for our whole family. Lupan works at the same place as the husband and they offer a free plan which is 50/50 (better then nothing) but again why start him a new plan when he is already on ours.

 

[cybele]

Ah, you should just all move to the UK.

Incidentally I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco, even with medical insurance it is cheaper for her to fly to the UK to receive medical treatment, pay for a hotel and then fly back to the states than it would be to pay the co-pays on her breast cancer treatment, she also receives better treatment as here we use a far more individual approach than any of the hospitals in her area.

Australia is in the same boat as the UK.

I think that's why I find all this discussion really odd, just because it's something very normalised for me.

Out of my taxes I pay about $20 a year for public health, given the amount my family take out of public health, that's a pretty good deal. Those over the age of 30 who do not have private cover, pay health cover loading on their taxes, from what I am aware, it's something like an extra $50 a year, simply because they are putting a further strain on the public health care system.

Yeah, it's about money, but it is a trickle down effect, we don't pay to see a GP ever. It's bulk billed, you walk in, scan your public health care card, walk out.

I find it strange when you go on forums and read about people who make comments like "Oh, I have an ear infection, but I can't afford to go and see a doctor" surely we can identify that isn't right. Yes it's about money, but it solves another problem in terms of medical affordability, it benefits those with and those without insurance.

I just find the backlash to "Obamacare" so peculiar, because so many countries have pretty much the exact same thing in place, this isn't anything new, groundbreaking or revolutionary, we've had it since the mid 80's, and nearly 30 years later, no one complains about it, at the time people did, but hindsight is 20/20, of course, and we realise that good old Bob Hawke did the right thing in introducing it, it has changed over the years, included some things, taken some things out, it now also covers a childcare rebate, it grows and changes, so will Obamacare.

Mind you, not only do we support Australian born Australians on it, but every second week in the paper there is some little story in the corner about someone who has come over from another country (often America) who is trying to get their Australian citizenship for Medicare purposes, because they cannot afford the medical treatment they require back home.

 

[mom2many]

Australia is in the same boat as the UK.

I think that's why I find all this discussion really odd, just because it's something very normalised for me.

Out of my taxes I pay about $20 a year for public health, given the amount my family take out of public health, that's a pretty good deal. Those over the age of 30 who do not have private cover, pay health cover loading on their taxes, from what I am aware, it's something like an extra $50 a year, simply because they are putting a further strain on the public health care system.

Yeah, it's about money, but it is a trickle down effect, we don't pay to see a GP ever. It's bulk billed, you walk in, scan your public health care card, walk out.

I find it strange when you go on forums and read about people who make comments like "Oh, I have an ear infection, but I can't afford to go and see a doctor" surely we can identify that isn't right. Yes it's about money, but it solves another problem in terms of medical affordability, it benefits those with and those without insurance.

I just find the backlash to "Obamacare" so peculiar, because so many countries have pretty much the exact same thing in place, this isn't anything new, groundbreaking or revolutionary, we've had it since the mid 80's, and nearly 30 years later, no one complains about it, at the time people did, but hindsight is 20/20, of course, and we realise that good old Bob Hawke did the right thing in introducing it, it has changed over the years, included some things, taken some things out, it now also covers a childcare rebate, it grows and changes, so will Obamacare.

Mind you, not only do we support Australian born Australians on it, but every second week in the paper there is some little story in the corner about someone who has come over from another country (often America) who is trying to get their Australian citizenship for Medicare purposes, because they cannot afford the medical treatment they require back home.

this is why I always shake my head when people are in such an uproar over it. We are one of the few industrialized countries, that don't offer it. That the mere thought of equalizing healthcare sends people into a panic. I honestly don't understand, these very same people are the people complaining about not being able to be seen because they can't afford it. I would have no problem offering up a little more money from our paychecks in order to make sure that 'everyone' has access to medical care.

 

[Jeremy+3]

Australia is in the same boat as the UK.

I think that's why I find all this discussion really odd, just because it's something very normalised for me.

Out of my taxes I pay about $20 a year for public health, given the amount my family take out of public health, that's a pretty good deal. Those over the age of 30 who do not have private cover, pay health cover loading on their taxes, from what I am aware, it's something like an extra $50 a year, simply because they are putting a further strain on the public health care system.

Yeah, it's about money, but it is a trickle down effect, we don't pay to see a GP ever. It's bulk billed, you walk in, scan your public health care card, walk out.

I find it strange when you go on forums and read about people who make comments like "Oh, I have an ear infection, but I can't afford to go and see a doctor" surely we can identify that isn't right. Yes it's about money, but it solves another problem in terms of medical affordability, it benefits those with and those without insurance.

I just find the backlash to "Obamacare" so peculiar, because so many countries have pretty much the exact same thing in place, this isn't anything new, groundbreaking or revolutionary, we've had it since the mid 80's, and nearly 30 years later, no one complains about it, at the time people did, but hindsight is 20/20, of course, and we realise that good old Bob Hawke did the right thing in introducing it, it has changed over the years, included some things, taken some things out, it now also covers a childcare rebate, it grows and changes, so will Obamacare.

Mind you, not only do we support Australian born Australians on it, but every second week in the paper there is some little story in the corner about someone who has come over from another country (often America) who is trying to get their Australian citizenship for Medicare purposes, because they cannot afford the medical treatment they require back home.

I'm not sure who much we actually pay in our taxes, but not a lot, basically we have a something called national insurance with is 11% of anything you earn over £9K (unless you're a student, and you pay less if you work in a public service. However it doesn't just fund out entire NHS, but also our entire education system, pension system, the armed forces and benefits surrounding illness and bereavement. AH okay, I have found the average NHS spend. The figure varies year on year but on average but if we split what NI is spent on, the average earner spends 3% of their earnings over £9K on the NHS, so the average earner (£24K a year) spends £450 a year on the NHS.

So the average Brit spends £450 a year, the average American insurance spend (before co-pays etc) is $2664 a year. For £450 we receive absolutely everything, we don't pay a penny more, as our NHS includes dentistry you could even get your tooth paste etc free on a prescription.

Interestingly the American government spends more per head on health care than the UK does, so for less money per head we have an entire health system, work that out!

 

[NancyM]

Ah, you should just all move to the UK.

Incidentally I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco, even with medical insurance it is cheaper for her to fly to the UK to receive medical treatment, pay for a hotel and then fly back to the states than it would be to pay the co-pays on her breast cancer treatment, she also receives better treatment as here we use a far more individual approach than any of the hospitals in her area.

Jeremy we have probably hundreds of different type of medical plans to fit just about anyone's budget or needs.

Some plans have no co-pays at all. Others have hi co-pays but low premiums. Some plans allow you to choose any doctor you like who takes your plan. I have this and my co-pay is only $20.00 a visit.

Many insurances, like my own also consider if you need treatments of any kind, you do not have to pay a co-pay for each treatment visit. (have to read about the plan before you buy it) Same as if a woman is having a baby she doesn't have to pay a co-pay for each pre-natal care visit. (some may differ) I also Do NOT pay a co-pay for 'well visit' and preventive care.

My insurance also includes full dental and eyeglass coverage for the family. I just had my eyes tested and they payed $375.00 for my reading glasses, my husband gets 2 pair, and my son can get a pair as well if he needs them. So I'm pretty happy with it. My husband's job pays for most of it, we pay a small amount each month.

I don't know which your cousin choose to buy for herself, but she did have a choice, and I suppose it was suited her needs at the time of purchase.

 

[Jeremy+3]

Jeremy we have probably hundreds of different type of medical plans to fit just about anyone's budget or needs.

Some plans have no co-pays at all. Others have hi co-pays but low premiums. Some plans allow you to choose any doctor you like who takes your plan. I have this and my co-pay is only $20.00 a visit.

Many insurances, like my own also consider if you need treatments of any kind, you do not have to pay a co-pay for each treatment visit. (have to read about the plan before you buy it) Same as if a woman is having a baby she doesn't have to pay a co-pay for each pre-natal care visit. (some may differ) I also Do NOT pay a co-pay for 'well visit' and preventive care.

My insurance also includes full dental and eyeglass coverage for the family. I just had my eyes tested and they payed $375.00 for my reading glasses, my husband gets 2 pair, and my son can get a pair as well if he needs them. So I'm pretty happy with it. My husband's job pays for most of it, we pay a small amount each month.

I don't know which your cousin choose to buy for herself, but she did have a choice, and I suppose it was suited her needs at the time of purchase.

Being a doctor she has the best insurance going, with added premium services for things like cancer (though the treatment would be considered inferior quality in the UK), if it weren't for Obama care she would no longer even have insurance due to her diagnosis of cancer.

 

[bssage]

Jeremy we have probably hundreds of different type of medical plans to fit just about anyone's budget or needs.

Some plans have no co-pays at all. Others have hi co-pays but low premiums. Some plans allow you to choose any doctor you like who takes your plan. I have this and my co-pay is only $20.00 a visit.

Many insurances, like my own also consider if you need treatments of any kind, you do not have to pay a co-pay for each treatment visit. (have to read about the plan before you buy it) Same as if a woman is having a baby she doesn't have to pay a co-pay for each pre-natal care visit. (some may differ) I also Do NOT pay a co-pay for 'well visit' and preventive care.

My insurance also includes full dental and eyeglass coverage for the family. I just had my eyes tested and they payed $375.00 for my reading glasses, my husband gets 2 pair, and my son can get a pair as well if he needs them. So I'm pretty happy with it. My husband's job pays for most of it, we pay a small amount each month.

I don't know which your cousin choose to buy for herself, but she did have a choice, and I suppose it was suited her needs at the time of purchase.

I don't know your background Nancy. And I like you. But I am not familiar with this so many abundant choices stuff. I get a limited number of choices from work. I can opt out and pay a premium. I just don't see what you are talking about.

One of the things that always gets my shorts in a knot. Is hearing about your out of US birth stories. In the states. You have a new family starting out. Making all the right steps and decide to have a baby. The ins battles begin before the baby even comes. Arguments with ins about cost of testing: what test are required: where the test were done. God forbid something during the birth or with the baby goes south. Now you have a new family under the 8 ball with medical debt in jobs that cant leave because of the debt ect ect ect. And if your not "buyin what I'm sellin" Its FACT Its Fact because that was the spot I was in while insured when Cole was born. I could go on and on. About the stress: credit card use because of medical debt: I would guess Crime and family stress divorce ect ect. Because we cant learn a lesson from our peers. Statements like " all the good doctors will leave" Or "Insurance is going to raise the rates in anticipation of" are designed to SCARE. If a doctor wants to leave or an insurance company wants to be non competitive. Fine with me go pack sand for all I care. We are talking about people: neighbors: family: Friends:

In Nottinghamshire or Australia YOU JUST HAVE A BABY.

Right now I am waiting till next years begins to get several biopsies done on my back (frequent flyer fair skinned redhead) There is no point doing it now as my deductible will start again in the new year. Cant see paying it twice in 3 months.

Sorry vent

 

[akmom]

There's a lot of information in this thread, and it would take a lot of time to respond to it all, so I'll start here and see where it goes.

Well visits and the other things are unnecessary? I think its really the point. A ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure thing.

There is still a lot of debate over whether annual exams are economical. The question is whether they can detect unknown but treatable conditions often enough that the cost of having everyone examined routinely is actually less than the extra cost of having a relatively few people diagnosed and treated earlier. But the problem is, many of these problems do not require an annual visit to predict. Two big ones in the U.S. are obesity and smoking, which can lead to a number of serious health problems (diabetes, sleep apnea, heart disease, lung cancer, COPD, emphysema, etc.). You don't need an annual exam to tell you that you are obese or that you smoke, or what to do about it. (Weight loss or smoking cessation typically does not involve the health care industry at all.) Yet those are the most common and costly conditions in the U.S.

Because we can count on people to do the right thing [and buy health insurance voluntarily]? ... Second if people could be counted on for that we would not be having this discussion.

Now you are begging the question. Is purchasing health insurance the "right thing" to do? We've heard all kinds of examples from people who were broke, or had limited financial means, or were struggling with more urgent expenses. The problem is, pretty much everyone fits into that category, especially when they are young. That is not a unique situation (though everyone seems to think theirs is)! It just illustrates how health care prices are well out of most people's ability to pay. That's true for direct medical expenses OR health insurance. Mandating health insurance does not change that. People still have limited income, bills to pay, and a leaky roof to fix. All that has changed is their ability to make those priorities.

I would argue that healthy eating is the right thing to do. The problem is, people cannot be counted upon to do the right thing regarding their eating habits. In fact, 35.7% of U.S. adults are clinically obese (compared to only 16.7% who are uninsured). If we mandated a national meal plan, we could force people to make the right eating choices - transcending all the reasons that they aren't doing so already. It doesn't have to be the same for everyone. You can tailor your plan to fit your lifestyle. Those who can afford steak and crab can have 8 oz. each meal, while those on lower incomes can consume chicken or tuna. It also doesn't matter what green vegetable you choose (or if you even eat it), as long as you buy it. Most people will choose to eat right when it is readily available to them, thanks to my proposed legislation that forces Americans to buy 8 oz. of protein, 8 oz. of whole grain carbohydrates, and 16 oz. of green vegetables per person, three times a day. Those who cannot afford it will be subsidized. Isn't it great to have a federal mandate saving us from the consequences of liberty? Not only will my plan, incidentally, cost less than health insurance and save more lives than preventive care, but it will also save each American $1,429 per year on overall medical care (based on the CDC's estimate of obesity's per capita costs in 2008).

Again, you can make a case for a lot of things. I tend to vote libertarian because I value liberty most (even more than health or money). That's a big thing to give up for a health care plan that is not even likely to solve our problems.

 

[akmom]

Out of my taxes I pay about $20 a year for public health.

That is why you don't understand this discussion. I pay over $5,000 per year for health insurance. That is the cheapest plan available to me, and now I have no choice but to buy it. It doesn't cover anything until after I spend $1,000 out-of-pocket on medical care, and then it covers 80% of many procedures up to some "allowed amount" that I am not allowed to know ahead of time. I cover the difference. A typical doctor appointment (such as an ear infection) is $135.

Jeremy we have probably hundreds of different type of medical plans to fit just about anyone's budget or needs.

My husband works for a small company, so we are offered only one plan (take it or leave it). Self-insuring costs more; we looked into that too. I paid $1,000 per calendar year for prenatal care, then 20% per visit after that. Because I was always pregnant over the course of 2 calendar years, I always had to pay the deductible twice. That is why people have such a big problem with Obamacare... because we do not all get glorious options. Those are reserved for civil servants or those working for huge chain stores (who make up for it by paying minimum wage).

 

[bssage]

(Leaning back cracking knuckles) Just kidding

I really agree with most of what you are saying AK. Although I do think Jermey and others should play a part. I think they illustrate that there is another way.

The diet analogy is not an apples to apples comparison. We are talking about one thing healthcare. To say if we socialize something we become a socialized state is not correct. We already have many things that are socialized and working OK, Fire departments, Police, sewers, streets, ect. Creating a state ran healthcare that includes everyone does not open the door to communist rule. I know that is one of the favored scare tactics. But you are welcome to ask the other posters and see if they are mandated diets ect. My guess is no it did not. I would like to hear first hand from them how their state healthcare eroded their liberties.

Like I mentioned I did see many things I liked in the libertarian plan. But I think it would be very problematic for an initial implementation. Again I really do agree with an overwhelming majority of your post. I just dont think ObamaCare will chuck us into some socialist void. And again I dont think its "the plan" Just a start in the right direction.

 

[NancyM]

I don't know your background Nancy. And I like you. But I am not familiar with this so many abundant choices stuff. I get a limited number of choices from work. I can opt out and pay a premium. I just don't see what you are talking about.

One of the things that always gets my shorts in a knot. Is hearing about your out of US birth stories. In the states. You have a new family starting out. Making all the right steps and decide to have a baby. The ins battles begin before the baby even comes. Arguments with ins about cost of testing: what test are required: where the test were done. God forbid something during the birth or with the baby goes south. Now you have a new family under the 8 ball with medical debt in jobs that cant leave because of the debt ect ect ect. And if your not "buyin what I'm sellin" Its FACT Its Fact because that was the spot I was in while insured when Cole was born. I could go on and on. About the stress: credit card use because of medical debt: I would guess Crime and family stress divorce ect ect. Because we cant learn a lesson from our peers. Statements like " all the good doctors will leave" Or "Insurance is going to raise the rates in anticipation of" are designed to SCARE. If a doctor wants to leave or an insurance company wants to be non competitive. Fine with me go pack sand for all I care. We are talking about people: neighbors: family: Friends:

In Nottinghamshire or Australia YOU JUST HAVE A BABY.

Right now I am waiting till next years begins to get several biopsies done on my back (frequent flyer fair skinned redhead) There is no point doing it now as my deductible will start again in the new year. Cant see paying it twice in 3 months.

Sorry vent

It sounds like you got a really sucky insurance package bssage I'm sorry. I don't understand about your deductible, don't you only have to apply that one time a year. Why twice in 3 mos? I would think that once you made your deductible for that year, it covers you until the end of the same year?

I don't think it's as easy as it sounds about those other countries. Nothing is that easy, you always have to pay somehow. I don't buy into all that.

I had a baby too and my health insurance covered it just the way it said it would. My friends too. No one had any problems as far as I know.

When I said the U.S. has hundreds of health insurance plans I was explaining to our members who don't live here that we DO have medical insurance options ...which we do.

We have private insurance plans, Clinics, government funded plans, State insurance plans, medicare, medicaid, and medical insurance plans covered through our jobs.

Private insurance is very expensive and it doesn't even cover everything. I'm lucky to pay for our insurance through my husbands job, which we didn't always have either.

I'm looking foward to 2014 to see what new options will become available to people, there may be a new plan that will work for your family as well, I hope so.