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

[bssage]

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?

Well I am not particularly proud of this. But I did not go to the doctor for anything last year. Actually I think the last time I went to a MD other than for being a pasty white dude who likes the sun. Was when I got the physical for the job I have now. Almost 10 yrs ago. Last time I went to the dermatologist was probably 5 yrs ago. I am a pretty durable dude. And pretty good at research and self diagnosis. I don't think I missed a day of work <U>actually</U> sick since 2001 or before.

I believe we start a new year deductible wise at the beginning of the calender year.

Now that you made me think of it. It was when I put my arm through the window. Three days before this job. so 9 1/2 yrs ago

 

[Testing]

akmom: 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.

But actually, though you can't be denied for a preexisting condition, you can bet the company has thoroughly reviewed all of your medical records and knows full well of your preexisting condition. It cannot deny you straight out, but it can make your insurance unaffordable, which is the same result. If you are in a group plan, it simply raises the rates of all group members a lot, so everyone is covering you now for this same self-funded nonsense. It is unbelievable.

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.

Sick care, not health care. There is very little health care in this country (USA), and all of those doctors are marginalized. This country runs on drugs and surgery to treat conditions, not prevention measures that work (and don't pad Big Pharma's pockets). Have you guys seen that commercial for Lovaza. It is FISH OIL! You don't need to buy it from Big Pharma. You can get a good grade at a health food store. But they can't patent that, so they pretend it is a drug.

 

[cybele]

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.

But you don't have public health yet, that's my point.

Under a public health scheme certain things are covered by the government and you don't have to pay for them, OR you pay a small gap.

For example, for me, seeing a GP is free, because the government pays the full cost because it is bulk billed. Some medical tests are 100% bulk billed. Other things have a rebate. So as an example, I took Azriel to the optomestrist recently because his prescription has changed, his appointment was completely bulk billed, so I pay nothing. His new lenses had a rebate of 95%, so I paid $10 for them, then he got the 2 frames for $99 deal, there is no rebate on frames, however we used our private health cover for the frames and got them with no gap. He got two pairs of brand new bi-focals for $10, without public health (and our private health), that would have cost me around $1000.

We also have private health, as our public health does not cover everything. We pay $7000 a year for the 8 of us, and that covers things that Medicare Australia does not cover, not in full, but it makes the gap payments smaller.

$7000 for me, $20 per adult over 18 in our household in tax (it is means tested so some people pay more, we are all relatively low income earners), so $7080 and I can certianly say that we would spend MUCH more than that on medical expenses per year, but the vast majority of it is covered.

Because of the benefits of public health me, Dita and Violet all get regular pap smears, I get a mammogram every two years, all of my kids have regular dentist visits, living in Australia with the high risk of skin cancer, we get skin checks, all the males in our household wear glasses and get their prescriptions updated as needed, we think nothing of just going to the doctor for small things, because it is not an issue, and I am so grateful to be living in a country where I can just up and go to the doctor without having to be worried about the cost.



As for the private health discussion, public health creates a demand for low cost basic private health for those who do not want it, but do not want the extra charge (from what I have read of Obamacare it is pretty much a copy of the way Australia does it) because it is a target area of people who would not have it otherwise.

I just find it funny that all this "It's all about money" "It will force us to get things we don't want" "The government don't actually care about us" talk is pretty much exactly the same as what I heard in the 80's, and after the system was put into practice, people realised that it makes sense.

Is there any country that has public health where the citizens are worse off after introducing it? This isn't exactly new ground, it's been done many times before and has been a success many times before.

 

[NancyM]

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.

You would think that Jeremy, but actually if your cousin worked for a hospital she probably had to take the same plan as everyone else or choose from a few plans her employer offered . It's hard to believe that a doctor would have to pay co-pays at all, in the offices I worked many doctors give 'professional' curtseys (sp) to each other, and do not charge the co-pay. Even as an employee I never paid a co-pay to the doctors I worked for.

Like I said most plans today do cover cancer treatments and consider the co-pays as "global payments' (same as when a person has surgery, they don't pay co-pays for the next couple of doctor follow up visits after surgery) but each plan varies.

It gets complicated to explain thats part of the problem here too, I don't know your cousin's exact insurance carrier and I'm sure she's correct about how it worked, Maybe she had to pay into it other than a co-pay, but most large companies here, have more than one insurance plan to pick from, it's just understanding them that isn't so easy.

Some with no co-pays at all, Ed and I choose to take a plan that has co-pays because it pays more to the doctors, and almost every doctor accepts this plan, most doctors in the U.S. take only the plans that pay them the most money. lol hence the indigent and low income families (who do not have co-pays)have a hard time finding doctors who will treat them because their plans pay literally a few dollars per visit. (Medicaid) Another problem with our health care system.

This is all suppose to change once the Health Care reform act comes into place..doctors have been meeting on this for years now.( how to get the most money from this new reform) :laugh:

 

[Jeremy+3]

Well I am not particularly proud of this. But I did not go to the doctor for anything last year. Actually I think the last time I went to a MD other than for being a pasty white dude who likes the sun. Was when I got the physical for the job I have now. Almost 10 yrs ago. Last time I went to the dermatologist was probably 5 yrs ago. I am a pretty durable dude. And pretty good at research and self diagnosis. I don't think I missed a day of work <U>actually</U> sick since 2001 or before.

I believe we start a new year deductible wise at the beginning of the calender year.

Now that you made me think of it. It was when I put my arm through the window. Three days before this job. so 9 1/2 yrs ago

Funnily enough the last time I went to the hospital was because I had put my arm through a window...weird.

 

[Jeremy+3]

You would think that Jeremy, but actually if your cousin worked for a hospital she probably had to take the same plan as everyone else or choose from a few plans her employer offered . It's hard to believe that a doctor would have to pay co-pays at all, in the offices I worked many doctors give 'professional' curtseys (sp) to each other, and do not charge the co-pay. Even as an employee I never paid a co-pay to the doctors I worked for.

Like I said most plans today do cover cancer treatments and consider the co-pays as "global payments' (same as when a person has surgery, they don't pay co-pays for the next couple of doctor follow up visits after surgery) but each plan varies.

It gets complicated to explain thats part of the problem here too, I don't know your cousin's exact insurance carrier and I'm sure she's correct about how it worked, Maybe she had to pay into it other than a co-pay, but most large companies here, have more than one insurance plan to pick from, it's just understanding them that isn't so easy.

Some with no co-pays at all, Ed and I choose to take a plan that has co-pays because it pays more to the doctors, and almost every doctor accepts this plan, most doctors in the U.S. take only the plans that pay them the most money. lol hence the indigent and low income families (who do not have co-pays)have a hard time finding doctors who will treat them because their plans pay literally a few dollars per visit. (Medicaid) Another problem with our health care system.

This is all suppose to change once the Health Care reform act comes into place..doctors have been meeting on this for years now.( how to get the most money from this new reform) :laugh:

She can take what ever plan she likes as her official employer is the British government (she works for the British Embassy), however the USA forces British people who work in the British embassies in the US to give up all links to their country, where as if she was employed by any other company in the USA this wouldn't be the case and so the NHS would fund all of her medical care.

 

[Jeremy+3]

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.

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting the British health system and our taxation system is a complete and utter myth.

 

[cybele]

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting the British health system and our taxation system is a complete and utter myth.

Same as all the green countries on this map

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Universal_health_care.svg&amp;page=1[/url]

Something is hard to imagine when it is not your norm. But it is actually that simple in terms of what we have to do in order to have it. All those countries in green have a fully functional public health system so clearly it is do-able and clearly it is not unrealistic.

To me, I see "Obamacare" as Obama wanting to bring America up to speed with other countries. Germany has had public health care for over a century. You cannot say that something that has been around for over 100 years does not work. I know it's just a wiki stub, but here is the beginnings of the German public healthcare system, from 1883, with further public health bills introduced in 1884 and 1889.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Bill_of_1883#Health_Insurance_Bill_of_1883[/url]

 

[bssage]

Sounds like I am bashing my own country. I'm not: I love the US.

But for some reason apparently even the metric system seems to be out of our grasp.

 

[cybele]

Disagreeing with something your country does isn't bashing your own country, its one of the privileges we have for living in "free" countries.

Australia does a lot of stupid crap, and I think that most of our politicians have a few screws loose, but I couldn't imagine living anywhere else.

 

[mom2many]

You can love your country and not agree about certain things. You can love your neighbor and not agree about some things.

I'm just gonna let cybele talk...she says it so well

 

[Jeremy+3]

Sounds like I am bashing my own country. I'm not: I love the US.

But for some reason apparently even the metric system seems to be out of our grasp.

You're not the only one guilty of that, when the UK went metric some people went to the high court to either ban the metric system, or apply a law stating that both the metric system and the old system was used. As a result we sell things by the kilo, we weigh our selves in stone, we measure our height in feet, we measure distances in miles and weigh our babies in grams.

 

[NancyM]

She can take what ever plan she likes as her official employer is the British government (she works for the British Embassy), however the USA forces British people who work in the British embassies in the US to give up all links to their country, where as if she was employed by any other company in the USA this wouldn't be the case and so the NHS would fund all of her medical care.

That makes the situation a little different. I was referring to people working for an ordinary USA company.

 

[NancyM]

Sounds like I am bashing my own country. I'm not: I love the US.

But for some reason apparently even the metric system seems to be out of our grasp.

Sometimes we have to educate ourselves to keep up with the changing times. My son taught me much of it, and I had to look up some things my self.

The metric system is new to all of us, I found that by having a kid in school forced me to keep up with the changes. Especially the 'new' math. Thank goodness he's a pro there didn't need my help at all.lol

When I said that I don't buy into stories I hear from citizens of some other countries that their health care system is so much better than ours, I just know, speaking from my own life experiences and only for myself, I find that you never get something for nothing and if it sounds too good to be true, than it probably is.

We each think our countries way of doing things is the 'best' way, including me, but we all can learn a little something from each other if we listen. We also need to realize that we're NOT getting ALL the information from the posters here, we're all just ordinary people, and are basically sharing a real small piece of knowledge about a very large subject.

There are way too many variables for any one person to know about their countries health care system that I would need an answer to before I could totally agree that theirs is better than mine and make that switch.

However, If it turned out to be true that one country has the better system , I hope our president knows about it, and copies it for us asap!! lol

That's another thing, why hasn't that been done already if there is a better quality of health care someplace that's been working wonderfully for a long time, and cheaper? don't you think our country would have jumped on that? Don't you think it would have been experimented with already here in the U.S.? There has to be something we'd be forfeiting. I don't know, maybe better quality healthcare, maybe wait times would make it almost impossible to see a dr when your really sick.

Just because a policy, or regulation works well for another country, who dosen't have the same taxation systems we've had for 2 centuries, and the same Constitutional legal systems we operate under, doesn't mean it would work correctly for our country. there are many differences between the U.S. and countries who've been around for hundreds of centuries. Even thousands. They've had plenty of time to find what works best, and have been through plenty of trials and errors.

Who wouldn't want to live in a place that pays for your healthcare completely, and has no negative effect on our countries revenue( I think even the government would take advantage of this) and you wouldn't have to give up any bit of the lifestyle your use to?? OR WOULD YOU?

I quote this from a site" If the government is providing those things to the people, but the people are not paying taxes for it, then how is that government paying for its doctors, facilities, administration, medicines, and research?" unquote,

This is how I feel, but couldn't find the right words.lol but I say even if taxes are low, that has to mean that the quality of care isn't the best. Here are is another site I looked at. You can find more on your own that might make you feel better about our healthcare.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-h[/URL]

Sometimes the grass simply looks greener on the other side of the world. :no:

Have a great day everyone.

 

[mom2many]

From what I remember many countries with universal health do pay more then we do in taxes. That is where the problem lies in this country. People hear the word taxes, and the possibility of a little more and then start to panic. The reality, say for me and many people I know, paying that little bit more in taxes is a hell of a lot less then what we pay per year for medical. We pay close to $5000 a year, have a $500 deductible per person, but no more the $1500 per family. A strange set up, but over all not bad so really we pay $6500 a year before we get any real benefits from our insurance. Basic maintenance is free though.

So I can't see where it is going to cost me anymore out of pocket, if it's in either taxes or it's in our private. The people really pushing to have 'Obamacare' repelled is the insurance companies and doctors. They are the ones who will really be hit, doctors only marginally, if universal health care is put into place.

 

[bssage]

Basic maintenance is free though.

Well not really free. Just covered. We pay for it in the rates.

The people really pushing to have 'Obamacare' repelled is the insurance companies and doctors. They are the ones who will really be hit, doctors only marginally, if universal health care is put into place.

While that is true. I think for different reasons. I agree. Just think it may not be for the reasons I once assumed it was for.

 

[NancyM]

That's not too bad M2M, considering you have a large family. We pay a little less through my husbands work insurance, they take it our bi-weekly so we don't feel it too much.

The way I understand the new health care reform is that we are allowed to keep the insurance we have, I'm not sure if we have to keep it or we can keep it if we choose to.

I don't mind my insurance either I think I have a great deal. The only thing we have to consider is with the new health care if everyone has to pay for it through their taxes than even those of us who already have insurance and pay our own, will probably still have to pay for those who don't through our taxes.

I don't mind contributing to the cause, but I know others who don't like this one bit.:yes:

 

[bssage]

I think the sticky point is that everyone has to be covered. Hence the issue with small businesses who will now be required to offer insurance to all employees.

We have always covered the indignant and elderly with taxes. That does not change. And never will is suppose. Having more people covered lessons the burden on the whole. At least that is the way I understand it. All these small business employees will no longer be on medicare leaving it for the indignant and elderly.

The problem I see is what the librarian party points out. to be covered: you have to fulfill what the government considers to be covered. Which I agree is an over-generalization of our needs (not wants) We may not want to be covered in case of heart attack but we have to be covered for it. Some of the required coverage is for thing we absolutely DO NOT NEED. Like birth for a man, like birth control for someone who has had a been "cut" or had their "tubes tied"

Dont hold my feet to the fire on my examples.

The way I understand it. The fundamental premise is that EVERYONE has to have coverage. This is true everywhere that they have national healthcare in order for it to be successful.

I could be wrong please correct me if I am. Its just the way I currently understand things. But in these countries who have successful systems. One way or another EVERYONE IS COVERED correct??

 

[NancyM]

I think the sticky point is that everyone has to be covered. Hence the issue with small businesses who will now be required to offer insurance to all employees.

We have always covered the indignant and elderly with taxes. That does not change. And never will is suppose. Having more people covered lessons the burden on the whole. At least that is the way I understand it. All these small business employees will no longer be on medicare leaving it for the indignant and elderly.

The problem I see is what the librarian party points out. to be covered: you have to fulfill what the government considers to be covered. Which I agree is an over-generalization of our needs (not wants) We may not want to be covered in case of heart attack but we have to be covered for it. Some of the required coverage is for thing we absolutely DO NOT NEED. Like birth for a man, like birth control for someone who has had a been "cut" or had their "tubes tied"

Dont hold my feet to the fire on my examples.

The way I understand it. The fundamental premise is that EVERYONE has to have coverage. This is true everywhere that they have national healthcare in order for it to be successful.

I could be wrong please correct me if I am. Its just the way I currently understand things. But in these countries who have successful systems. One way or another EVERYONE IS COVERED correct??

That's the way I understand it as well.

 

[Jeremy+3]

I think the sticky point is that everyone has to be covered. Hence the issue with small businesses who will now be required to offer insurance to all employees.

We have always covered the indignant and elderly with taxes. That does not change. And never will is suppose. Having more people covered lessons the burden on the whole. At least that is the way I understand it. All these small business employees will no longer be on medicare leaving it for the indignant and elderly.

The problem I see is what the librarian party points out. to be covered: you have to fulfill what the government considers to be covered. Which I agree is an over-generalization of our needs (not wants) We may not want to be covered in case of heart attack but we have to be covered for it. Some of the required coverage is for thing we absolutely DO NOT NEED. Like birth for a man, like birth control for someone who has had a been "cut" or had their "tubes tied"

Dont hold my feet to the fire on my examples.

The way I understand it. The fundamental premise is that EVERYONE has to have coverage. This is true everywhere that they have national healthcare in order for it to be successful.

I could be wrong please correct me if I am. Its just the way I currently understand things. But in these countries who have successful systems. One way or another EVERYONE IS COVERED correct??

Everyone is covered yes, and to exactly the same standard here we refer to it as "from the cradle to the grave", including visitors/tourists in the country. Ours is a little different, as we are in the EU we are also covered by the health services of other countries in the EU while on holiday or even if we move there permanently, or say for example I need a kidney transplant and a match is found in say Germany, I would then be flown there/the kidney flown here (which ever is best for the person) to receive a kidney transplant. Our NHS also offers free medical care to non-EU visitors/tourists they are within their rights to charge, but they don't as a doctor is there to help and not to gain from a persons suffering, so it is quite common for people to come here for treatment that either isn't available at home, or when they can't afford it.

It also provides convenience, for example I can go to any hospital, doctors surgery etc in the UK for treatment, so when I'm back in Wales visiting family if I'm ill I get seen in exactly the same way as I would at my local hospital, GP surgery or whatever.

However we don't have actual insurance, it just comes out of our taxes if we earn enough to pay tax, although I realised I made a mistake earlier, I should have mentioned that social care, such as in home care for the disabled and special services for disabled people are also funded by National insurance as are tax credits (a tax refund scheme for low earning people, although most receive more back than they pay in taxes).