Thread: "Affordable Healthcare Act" Early Failures

The rollout of the government's website is said to be disastrous. The President was compelled to call a press conference to address the issue. One of his suggestions to avoid the flawed website is to file a paper application or provide information by telephone. One observer suggested bringing back the telegraph!

One of the excuses offered was overwhelming demand "swamping" servers. The healthcare site struggled to handle 8 million hits in it's first week. eBizMBA pointed out that Google handles 225 million routinely, Facebook 175 million, Yahoo 125, YouTube 122. An increasing number of commentators and news outlets are predicting much larger issues lie ahead.

One of them is cancellation or failure to accept renewal of existing policies. Here's a few examples: Florida Blue is terminating 300,000 policies, about 80% of it's policies in Florida. Kaiser Permanente in California has already sent out cancellation notices to 160,000 people, half it's individual business in CA. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping 20% of it's individual market customers. Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45%. Blue Shield of California sent 119,000 cancellation notices in mid-September, 60% of it's individual business. About 2/3 of remaining policyholders will see substantial rate increases.

Without going into the effects of the Act on employers, what do you suppose these Insurors know that we (or I) do not? Should we be deeply concerned? jocular

imho the Affordable Healthcare Act
is a piece of unfunded mandate legislative crap that was in all likelihood crafted by insurance company and aha lobbyist.

.............
(but, then again, I could be wrong)

The reason many insurance companies are canceling policies,is because that is easier to do than bringing up the policies to ‘code,’ so to speak. ‘’Obamacare’’ illuminated if you will, all the glaring deficiencies that exist in the current healthcare system, within the insurance market. Putting it another way, insurance carriers have been ripping people off for years, by charging people for substandard healthcare coverage. I’m not for/against Obamacare, but if we choose to be angry over the current healthcare issue, it’s important to point our anger in the right direction.

An objective way to view the current healthcare situation is that there were significant problems prior to Obamacare entering the picture. Obamacare was seen as a solution to those problems, but like many new programs, (think of when your employer rolls out a new data management program, etc) it will take time to work out the kinks, before it will run efficiently. I’m not confident it will ever run efficiently, but we have to give it some time to see how it plays out.

Originally Posted by wegs

The reason many insurance companies are canceling policies,is because that is easier to do than bringing up the policies to ‘code,’ so to speak. ‘’Obamacare’’ illuminated if you will, all the glaring deficiencies that exist in the current healthcare system, within the insurance market. Putting it another way, insurance carriers have been ripping people off for years, by charging people for substandard healthcare coverage. I’m not for/against Obamacare, but if we choose to be angry over the current healthcare issue, it’s important to point our anger in the right direction.

Most assuredly true. Realistically, though, the "anger" was present long before government intervention, and since it provided no relief then, what reason have we to believe it will now? joc

joc
the deed is done
...
the old system sucked with ever escalating health care costs and (some) mediocre care


as/re (some)(I had my ear resewn after i fell and split it last week
the guys/residents doing the sewing did a damned good job of it)
It is healing nicely. (the neck is still stiff)

sculptor. Ouch!

Good to hear it's going well now.

yeh
over 20 stitches (i never thought that i could tear an ear like that in a fall---learning something new every day)
they prescribed a bottle full of pain pills which I didn't need and antibiotics which I used.

at our ages, every day above ground is a holiday

Obama got it passed by blatantly and repeatedly lying about it. Now he is lying about his lies, even though they are on videotape for everybody to see.

Did we really expect the Obama administration to implement this competently? Those people have never run so much as a lemonade stand. They're politicians and community organizers.

I understand that they granted themselves an exemption so they didn't have to do security testing, like anybody else would have to do. So now our health and financial information will be at risk.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama got it passed by blatantly and repeatedly lying about it. Now he is lying about his lies, even though they are on videotape for everybody to see.

Did we really expect the Obama administration to implement this competently? Those people have never run so much as a lemonade stand. They're politicians and community organizers.

I understand that they granted themselves an exemption so they didn't have to do security testing, like anybody else would have to do. So now our health and financial information will be at risk.

Harold, please provide direct reliably sourced evidence of your assertions, with out the blatant Partisan vitriol. You dont like the current PotUS, we know that. Bitching about him with not backing evidence is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama got it passed by blatantly and repeatedly lying about it. Now he is lying about his lies, even though they are on videotape for everybody to see.

Did we really expect the Obama administration to implement this competently? Those people have never run so much as a lemonade stand. They're politicians and community organizers.

I understand that they granted themselves an exemption so they didn't have to do security testing, like anybody else would have to do. So now our health and financial information will be at risk.

Harold, please provide direct reliably sourced evidence of your assertions, with out the blatant Partisan vitriol. You dont like the current PotUS, we know that. Bitching about him with not backing evidence is not acceptable.

Here's one for the security waiver.
Obama's HealthCare.gov site given security waiver despite risk - ComputerworldUK.com
Do you really need a citation for the lies? It's been all over the news. He said if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period. Now he's saying he said if you like you plan, most people can keep it, if it meets government standards. A comma is not a period. What else can you call it but a lie?

I learn some of my American politics from John Stuart. Is that bad?

He lied by about 5% to keeping insurance.

Not really obvious though why he decided to go even that far when it could have been a chance to illustrate how broken many of the policies were back then. A baseline standard of insurance coverage is one of the better parts of the bill though.

[QUOTE=sculptor;482995
as/re (some)(I had my ear resewn after i fell and split it last week
the guys/residents doing the sewing did a damned good job of it)
It is healing nicely. (the neck is still stiff)[/QUOTE]

If above is referenced elsewhere, I failed to see it. An accident lurks, like anything quite unexpected. Just wondering, as it's none of my business.......I, too, took a fall awhile back, the cost came to $24,000 total, one overnight stay in hospital, some parts of the experience were so humorous, my wife & I STILL laugh about it.

Is your age a factor? If yer up to it, show me yers, and I'll show you mine, PM, if more appropriate. Or, tell me GTH, your choice. joc

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

He lied by about 5% to keeping insurance.

Not really obvious though why he decided to go even that far when it could have been a chance to illustrate how broken many of the policies were back then. A baseline standard of insurance coverage is one of the better parts of the bill though.

I think it IS obvious: the man, like most of the hierarchy, has no clue regarding the realities of everyday life in these United States as experienced by the "rank & file" of us. joc

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

He lied by about 5% to keeping insurance.

It will be a lot more than 5% when the employer mandate delay expires.
Sebelius Bombshell: Employer Based Plans Will Face Same Grandfathering Caveats as Lost Individual Plans - Katie Pavlich

Not really obvious though why he decided to go even that far when it could have been a chance to illustrate how broken many of the policies were back then. A baseline standard of insurance coverage is one of the better parts of the bill though.

Not obvious? It's because the bill barely passed, and wouldn't have if people knew what was in it.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

He lied by about 5% to keeping insurance.

Not really obvious though why he decided to go even that far when it could have been a chance to illustrate how broken many of the policies were back then. A baseline standard of insurance coverage is one of the better parts of the bill though.

I think it IS obvious: the man, like most of the hierarchy, has no clue regarding the realities of everyday life in these United States as experienced by the "rank & file" of us. joc

I don't think that's correct. For one thing, whether you like Obama or not (I have mixed feelings) other than Bill Clinton, he's probably the most connected of most recent Presidents by his lower-middle class background and time embedded in the Chicago poor communities.

Besides, I don't think we need to guess or generalize about this one. I'll try to find it later, but there were several articles the past few days that revealed that whether to bring up those with bad-plans that would need to change was actually briefed for a decision a few years back...and the decision was to continue to state that no one would need to switch. And it's all rather disingenuous at this point, regardless of party and for the media--The "under insured" has been part of the health insurance discussions for decades--those needing to switch are the under-insured.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I learn some of my American politics from John Stuart. Is that bad?

You should check out Jon Stewart sometime, too.

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

Originally Posted by Flick

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I learn some of my American politics from John Stuart. Is that bad?

You should check out Jon Stewart sometime, too.

Haha, it's funny, yet I am annoyed as hell when I do stuff like this.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

Health care plans are always changing, even before Obamacare. If your co-pay goes up 10 dollars, well, it's not the same plan any more, is it. They knew this would happen. In fact, they were counting on it.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

Originally Posted by Flick

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I learn some of my American politics from John Stuart. Is that bad?

You should check out Jon Stewart sometime, too.

Haha, it's funny, yet I am annoyed as hell when I do stuff like this.

A lot of people joke about getting actual news from Jon, but if you've ever watched him on another program where he is the guest, he's actually very intelligent and makes some very good points. He can hold his own with "real" political analysts. He's not wildly successful for nothing.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

Health care plans are always changing, even before Obamacare. If your co-pay goes up 10 dollars, well, it's not the same plan any more, is it. They knew this would happen. In fact, they were counting on it.

Maybe, but the point is about whether the plans they promised people could keep, made the cut at the time Obama made the promise? What do you mean they were counting on it?

Originally Posted by Flick

A lot of people joke about getting actual news from Jon, but if you've ever watched him on another program where he is the guest, he's actually very intelligent and makes some very good points. He can hold his own with "real" political analysts. He's not wildly successful for nothing.

I have actually seen him in other settings as well (even Fox news and with freaking Glen Beck) and while I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, he talks a lot of sense usually. Also, even through his jokes, he does make good points and exposes absurdities and absurd people on a level that would make Borat proud. I have more respect for him than for Bill Maher for instance (oh God, did I spell that right?).

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

A lot of people joke about getting actual news from Jon, but if you've ever watched him on another program where he is the guest, he's actually very intelligent and makes some very good points. He can hold his own with "real" political analysts. He's not wildly successful for nothing.

I have actually seen him in other settings as well (even Fox news and with freaking Glen Beck) and while I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, he talks a lot of sense usually. Also, even through his jokes, he does make good points and exposes absurdities and absurd people on a level that would make Borat proud. I have more respect for him than for Bill Maher for instance (oh God, did I spell that right?).

Yeah, Stewart isn't a tool like Maher.

If nothing else, he does seem to get people interested in politics through his comedy. That counts for more than he's often given credit.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

In a nutshell that's right. There were many really bad plans peddled to citizens in the US, often cooked up to look better than they would and usually too expensive for the limited services they provided. Also health care are about as complex as they get and most folks don't really have a clue how to evaluate them--there's were no easy readability or legal protections in most states like there are for car insurance for example. So something bad would happen and a person would get a shock bill, not realizing their "great" insurgence didn't pay for the $12000 ambulance trip across town, nor their $30,000 overnight in the ICU after being carted across the hall from the emergency room (the one place there were covered), or the month of physical therapy they now can't afford to complete because that too isn't covered.

And as Harold suggest, the majority of these plans need updating every year anyhow, since they are yearly contracts--so changing one is hardly a new thing at all.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

In a nutshell that's right. There were many really bad plans peddled to citizens in the US, often cooked up to look better than they would and usually too expensive for the limited services they provided. Also health care are about as complex as they get and most folks don't really have a clue how to evaluate them--there's were no easy readability or legal protections in most states like there are for car insurance for example. So something bad would happen and a person would get a shock bill, not realizing their "great" insurgence didn't pay for the $12000 ambulance trip across town, nor their $30,000 overnight in the ICU after being carted across the hall from the emergency room (the one place there were covered), or the month of physical therapy they now can't afford to complete because that too isn't covered.

And as Harold suggest, the majority of these plans need updating every year anyhow, since they are yearly contracts--so changing one is hardly a new thing at all.

Why would people then opt to keep the crappy plans? Is the Obama care alternative more expensive?

BTW, those bill totals are INSANE.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What do you mean they were counting on it?

They were counting on it because they have to get people into the more expensive plans and shift the higher costs onto them. Remember, it's a tax. So ruled by the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana;483125
A lot of people joke about getting actual news from Jon, but if you've ever watched him on another program where he is the guest, he's actually very intelligent and makes some very good points. He can hold his own with "real" political analysts. [B

He's not wildly successful for nothing[/B].

Or successful at all, where I'm concerned, sorry. Is this some T-V personality? Anyone care to enlighten this misdirected old fool? joc

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I was under the impression that some people on current plans no longer meet the requirements of Affordable Healthcare due to the plans having changed in the mean time since Obama made the promise?

In a nutshell that's right. There were many really bad plans peddled to citizens in the US, often cooked up to look better than they would and usually too expensive for the limited services they provided. Also health care are about as complex as they get and most folks don't really have a clue how to evaluate them--there's were no easy readability or legal protections in most states like there are for car insurance for example. So something bad would happen and a person would get a shock bill, not realizing their "great" insurgence didn't pay for the $12000 ambulance trip across town, nor their $30,000 overnight in the ICU after being carted across the hall from the emergency room (the one place there were covered), or the month of physical therapy they now can't afford to complete because that too isn't covered.

And as Harold suggest, the majority of these plans need updating every year anyhow, since they are yearly contracts--so changing one is hardly a new thing at all.

No insurance is inexpensive IMO, as all insurance is written with the goal in mind, and full intention of, accurately second-guessing the outcome of future events, thus ensuring profitable returns on those "guesses". I'm dead certain that the statistics of health insurance are little different than those of mortality. The concept of ALL chipping in a modest amount, the vast sums of which would cover outlay for policy benefits paid out, with a bit of "gravy" floating on top of each premium to cover statistical flaws. Note that so-called "exclusions" contained in many insurance policies (especially homeowners' insurance) are widespread and far reaching. "Loss resulting from bursting, bulging, freezing, explosion, movement of foundations, war, whether declared or not, etc., etc." guarantees minimum payout.

The insurance industry makes oodles of money, bet on it. Maybe more, in reality than the oil industry. Almost every skyscraper in downtown (well, ALMOST) Chicago has a large lighted sign affixed way up high: New York Life, Prudential, Travelers, etc. Many of the airliners in flight, believe it or not, are indirectly owned by insurance companies! joc

Insurance is a lot like las vegas, the house always wins.
If you are healthy, careful, and cautious, you will have the joy of paying for the folks who aren't.

Keeping insurance companies in the loop in national health care is like letting the fox quard the hen house.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

BTW, those bill totals are INSANE.

In November, 2010, I slipped on a few short fallen dowel rods while standing upright on a workbench in my shop, pitched forward in front of my wife's eyes, tried vainly to break the fall clutch at the parked vehicle's surface nearby, and cracked my damn fool forehead open on the concrete floor. I immediately stood up, dazed a bit, blood issuing forth, and repeating over and over, "WTH happened"? Realizing I wasn't "quite right", she drove me the 23 miles in to the town of Salem, stopped enroute by a cop, who quickly advised her to follow him, he had an ambulance waiting on the edge of town, which took me 1/2 mile to the helipad. Ambulance bill $ 1,800. They flew me to Columbia, MO, even though similar treatment was available right there in our town. The chopper flew a total of 160 miles round trip: the tab, $ 9,400.

Columbia kept me overnight, called my wife, asking her to come pick me up the next day after noon. I was there about 18 hours: the tab, $ 24,000. They did a CT scan and chest X-ray (??).

Regarding the helicopter: the bill indicated the cost breakdown thusly: 160 miles @ $40/mi., $6,400. The difference was the charge to shove a body on board: $ 3,000 ! As I said, all of the diagnostic work done could have been performed at Salem Memorial. We were not asked nor advised, of possible alternatives to the chopper ride. OK, maybe the EMTs made the decision in all honesty, based on their observations: asked me at the ambulance several questions, the day, the date, Christ, being retired, I NEVER know the day or date! The Air-Evac people settled with me for payments, interest-free, of $ 66./mo. on the balance not covered by Medicare, about $ 1,800. Nice of them.

The humorous side, we STILL laugh about; I rarely bother to wear underwear while working about the house or shop, no exception that day. Conscious the whole time, but "out of my head", I implored the lady EMT as she set about removing my pants, to please excuse my having no underwear! Insane charges? What do YOU think? joc

imho the "health care" industry in this country has been far too overpaid/overpriced for far too long, and that has attracted many completely wrong people to the industry.
Some are good to great, many are only in it for the money.

In all fairness, our legislators and judiciary seem to have no cost consciousness either. I read of a woman who bounced a $149.00 check for groceries for her children, and the judge gave her 3 years, and the children in the system-total cost to the tax payers was a tad over $150,000-------maybe the judge could have given her the $149.00 and sent her home, saving us(the tax payers) $149, 851.00------------

If you seem to be the only sane person left, maybe the definition of sanity needs changing?

The healthcare industry is full of mystery anyways. No one really knows the cost of anything, and if you were to ask beforehand — to see if you can afford it, fancy that! — no one at the doctor's office or emergency room or medevac chopper could tell you. No other industry in the country works like this or costs so much.

How could anyone — let alone the government — ever discern the affordable part of this Affordable Care Act?

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

The healthcare industry is full of mystery anyways. No one really knows the cost of anything, and if you were to ask beforehand — to see if you can afford it, fancy that! — no one at the doctor's office or emergency room or medevac chopper could tell you. No other industry in the country works like this or costs so much.

How could anyone — let alone the government — ever discern the affordable part of this Affordable Care Act?

JR, you are IMO, on the money! joc

Thus far, I don't believe the numbers of policies cancelled which were pointed out in the OP, has particularly impressed anyone. Why? Am I just a worry-wart? Unknown whether such great percentages of total policies issued being cancelled is par for the annual course, or not. Sounds like, though, not.

If as a business-owner you had regular accounts which paid you a pre-determined amount periodically, VERY periodically, often monthly, what precursor to potential difficulty could possibly lead you to the decision to drive off half your business in a single swipe? jocular

How could anyone — let alone the government — ever discern the affordable part of this Affordable Care Act?

I find the US approach to health insurance completely mystifying. It seems to consist of paying far too much to faceless companies who get unqualified clerks to tell people that they're not insured for perfectly ordinary stuff just when they need it most - or they get hospital administrators to deliver the bad news on their behalf. Hence all the personal bankruptcies.

Affordable applies to the system at large, the government in particular, in applying the obligation on all insurance providers to cover preventive and maintenance medical care. The new system is much, much cheaper to individuals and, especially governments paying for emergency care, for people to have regular checkups fully insured with no co-pay and have their blood pressure monitored along with all those other routine tests that can head off catastrophic events before they even get started.

I find it amazing, not to say horrifying, that the biggest economy in the world has identifiable groups whose life expectancy is declining when it is increasing practically everywhere else in the world.

Researchers also don't know exactly how many women are affected. Montez says a good estimate is roughly 12 percent.
The study, released Monday by the journal Health Affairs, found declining life expectancy for women in about 43 percent of the nation's counties.

Study finds life span declining for women in some parts of the U.S, - The Denver Post

[QUOTE=adelady;483201]

Study finds life span declining for women in some parts of the U.S, - The Denver Post

Personally, I should think that "some parts of the U.S." may be found to contain specifics which fit almost any kind of proposed hypothesis. joc

as re women dying younger
blame it on women's lib
2 generations ago, women had the stress of raising a family
now
women have the stress of raising a family, the stress of a career, and the unhealthy fast food industry

liberty/freedom isn't free, it comes with some risks

If I could list the number of times when i made an appointment to see a doctor, showed up on time, then waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited in a room full of really sick, and, most likely contagious people.......................

When I make appointments, I keep them
and I damned well expect that of others, including doctors
When you add in jackasses who do not honor their appointment commitments to a stressful day, the normal stress becomes more unhealthy.

I've read that in Denmark, citizens have the mandated right to be seen by medical practitioners within 20 minutes-----------what a pity that compared to them the USA is so retarded.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I've read that in Denmark, citizens have the mandated right to be seen by medical practitioners within 20 minutes-----------what a pity that compared to them the USA is so retarded.

Sculp, I normally have to agree with you, but not this time. I feel that given a certain doctor, he or she needs an amount of time spent with a patient which depends on a lot of things which should not be interfered with by regulations. Some illness diagnoses take longer than others, and it should be up to the practitioner how much time needs to be spent per patient. Watching the clock during treatment is intrusive. But, it could be argued that in a clinical setting, if patients routinely had lengthy waits, more doctors should be present. Scheduling of patients is surely a daunting task.

More patients seen per day = more money made; perhaps the mandate was done to assuage doctors' dislike of intrusive government control over medicine. joc

More info on the cancellations that will hit when employer based insurance plans have to meet Obamacare requirements. It could end up being 69% of insurance plans, not the 5% they are still claiming. Unfortunately, a lot of people won't understand this until after the mid-term elections.

Obama insisted anew Thursday that the problem is limited to people who buy their own insurance. “We’re talking about 5 percent of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own,” he told NBC.

But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million. That’s because many employer-provided insurance plans also could change, not just individually purchased insurance plans

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had | White House | McClatchy DC

Sorry. Obamacare is a mess. It won't be cleared up quickly or well. Things not planned out and though out but pushed through usually don't work and 15,000,000 left now w/o who had insurance is pretty pathetic.

I have always been in favor of medical for all.

I don't think this is the one. Maybe as YEARS go by, the freaking mess will be muddled through. Most everyone I know had horrid increases...this isn't supposed to be how it works......why didn't they look at Norway or France or Switzerland to see how to do this right and not jump in.


I am disgusted.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

The healthcare industry is full of mystery anyways. No one really knows the cost of anything, and if you were to ask beforehand — to see if you can afford it, fancy that! — no one at the doctor's office or emergency room or medevac chopper could tell you. No other industry in the country works like this or costs so much.

How could anyone — let alone the government — ever discern the affordable part of this Affordable Care Act?

Let me tell you a story.

A friend of mine went to the dentist and had no coverage....the cost of his treatment was 200.00
He went back WITH insurance and the cost of the SAME treatment was 500.00.........

what is wrong with this picture?

He went back WITH insurance and the cost of the SAME treatment was 500.00.........

Sounds like the same sort of "business practice" that happens with car and house repairs. Negotiate and pay for it yourself, price is as reasonable as you can make it. Tell them to deal with the insurance company and a whole new world of prices seems to open up. Sometimes the insurance companies have standard prices for certain things, sometimes the person invoicing inflates prices to compensate for the paperwork hassle, sometimes it looks as though the whole transaction was negotiated by aliens.

Originally Posted by adelady

He went back WITH insurance and the cost of the SAME treatment was 500.00.........

Sounds like the same sort of "business practice" that happens with car and house repairs. Negotiate and pay for it yourself, price is as reasonable as you can make it. Tell them to deal with the insurance company and a whole new world of prices seems to open up. Sometimes the insurance companies have standard prices for certain things, sometimes the person invoicing inflates prices to compensate for the paperwork hassle, sometimes it looks as though the whole transaction was negotiated by aliens.

or by hospitals and doctors...it was the same doctor and same procedure with and without insurance to me that points the finger at the doctor

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by sculptor

I've read that in Denmark, citizens have the mandated right to be seen by medical practitioners within 20 minutes-----------what a pity that compared to them the USA is so retarded.

Sculp, I normally have to agree with you, but not this time. I feel that given a certain doctor, he or she needs an amount of time spent with a patient which depends on a lot of things which should not be interfered with by regulations. Some illness diagnoses take longer than others, and it should be up to the practitioner how much time needs to be spent per patient. Watching the clock during treatment is intrusive. But, it could be argued that in a clinical setting, if patients routinely had lengthy waits, more doctors should be present. Scheduling of patients is surely a daunting task.

More patients seen per day = more money made; perhaps the mandate was done to assuage doctors' dislike of intrusive government control over medicine. joc

joc
i think you misunderstood. it wasn't about the time a doctor could spend with a patient, it was about the waiting time before seeing a doctor in a state run clinic. If the state facility could not meet the 20 minute wait time, then the citizen has the right to see a private doctor at the state's expense.
I had a doctor friend in Chicago named Bowser who worked for an HMO. They wanted him to limit his patient time to 8 minutes, and would pack his schedule. He thought that ridiculous, and took as long as he wanted with each patient. The doctors at that HMO(Anchor) tended to not stay there very long.
Back to Denmark, if I understood the article I read, the doctors and staff at state run facilities are salaried. If they see more or less patients, it has no effect on their income.
..........
further reading on Denmark has led me to think of them as a tight assed little country(from whence came the Frisian line of my ancestors). I find their 100% tax on gasoline powered automobiles to be a tad over the top.

Originally Posted by sculptor

joc
i think you misunderstood. it wasn't about the time a doctor could spend with a patient, it was about the waiting time before seeing a doctor in a state run clinic. If the state facility could not meet the 20 minute wait time, then the citizen has the right to see a private doctor at the state's expense.
I had a doctor friend in Chicago named Bowser who worked for an HMO. They wanted him to limit his patient time to 8 minutes, and would pack his schedule. He thought that ridiculous, and took as long as he wanted with each patient. The doctors at that HMO(Anchor) tended to not stay there very long.
Back to Denmark, if I understood the article I read, the doctors and staff at state run facilities are salaried. If they see more or less patients, it has no effect on their income.
..........
further reading on Denmark has led me to think of them as a tight assed little country(from whence came the Frisian line of my ancestors). I find their 100% tax on gasoline powered automobiles to be a tad over the top.

Agreed, I often don't understand! But, it seems simple enough to me that, if a doctor's daily patient load is ascertained by an individual setting up appointments, the longer the doctor spends with a patient, the longer those who arrive on time for their own appointment are forced to wait. IMO.

Now, given the rarity of the name Bowser, my sister married a Bowser from Pennsylvania, long ago. Surprising coincidence you should mention that name! joc

The problem with healthcare in the united states is that it takes the worst features of capitalism and socialism and combines them. Health care providers almost all work for corporations primarily interested in making as much profit as possible. This statement not intended as a slur on the actual workers, many of whom enter the profession with a genuine desire to help the sick whatever it takes, but these people answer to decision makers who are motivated primarily by the financial bottom line. It is laughable that many of these corporations actually qualify as non-profit, a meaningless label in the current US legal system. In the quest for profits, these corporations of course try to decrease expenses by hiring fewer and less qualified personnel and providing less and lower quality supplies. In a conventional capitalist system, this trend would be fought by the consumers, who would shop around for greater value for their money until some equilibrium between profits and quality of services is reached. However, in the US, this is not allowed to happen. As jrmonroe has pointed out, patients who ask about costs get met with blank stares. There is usually no way of finding out what any given medical service will cost until you get the bill days or weeks later. Consumers have no practical way to shop around and find the best value for their money. Medical services simply are not subject to market forces, and the result is predictable, costs have spiraled rapidly upward, consuming a greater and greater percentage of people's income as time goes on.

So now we have the Obamacare mandate, which simply continues the same system of no accountability to consumers. Except that now people who have refused to participate in the scam, will be forced by a system of fines to give up what little control they have. Its a great law for insurance companies and health care providers, but it truly sucks for patients.

Dan, very astute, indeed! I can attest to the fact personally, that the last two Principal Care Providers whom I had seen were both poorly qualified, in my estimation, inaccurately diagnosed my main health concerns, and seemed aloof and disinterested. The Supplemental Healthcare Insurors appear to have prepared their system to function by the PCP doing little of value, save to forward the patient to yet another doctor for whom they pander: the "Specialist". jocular

This is truly an outstanding post.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

The problem with healthcare in the united states is that it takes the worst features of capitalism and socialism and combines them. Health care providers almost all work for corporations primarily interested in making as much profit as possible. This statement not intended as a slur on the actual workers, many of whom enter the profession with a genuine desire to help the sick whatever it takes, but these people answer to decision makers who are motivated primarily by the financial bottom line. It is laughable that many of these corporations actually qualify as non-profit, a meaningless label in the current US legal system. In the quest for profits, these corporations of course try to decrease expenses by hiring fewer and less qualified personnel and providing less and lower quality supplies. In a conventional capitalist system, this trend would be fought by the consumers, who would shop around for greater value for their money until some equilibrium between profits and quality of services is reached. However, in the US, this is not allowed to happen. As jrmonroe has pointed out, patients who ask about costs get met with blank stares. There is usually no way of finding out what any given medical service will cost until you get the bill days or weeks later. Consumers have no practical way to shop around and find the best value for their money. Medical services simply are not subject to market forces, and the result is predictable, costs have spiraled rapidly upward, consuming a greater and greater percentage of people's income as time goes on.So now we have the Obamacare mandate, which simply continues the same system of no accountability to consumers. Except that now people who have refused to participate in the scam, will be forced by a system of fines to give up what little control they have. Its a great law for insurance companies and health care providers, but it truly sucks for patients.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

The problem with healthcare in the united states is that it takes the worst features of capitalism and socialism and combines them. Health care providers almost all work for corporations primarily interested in making as much profit as possible. This statement not intended as a slur on the actual workers, many of whom enter the profession with a genuine desire to help the sick whatever it takes, but these people answer to decision makers who are motivated primarily by the financial bottom line. It is laughable that many of these corporations actually qualify as non-profit, a meaningless label in the current US legal system. In the quest for profits, these corporations of course try to decrease expenses by hiring fewer and less qualified personnel and providing less and lower quality supplies. In a conventional capitalist system, this trend would be fought by the consumers, who would shop around for greater value for their money until some equilibrium between profits and quality of services is reached. However, in the US, this is not allowed to happen. As jrmonroe has pointed out, patients who ask about costs get met with blank stares. There is usually no way of finding out what any given medical service will cost until you get the bill days or weeks later. Consumers have no practical way to shop around and find the best value for their money. Medical services simply are not subject to market forces, and the result is predictable, costs have spiraled rapidly upward, consuming a greater and greater percentage of people's income as time goes on.

So now we have the Obamacare mandate, which simply continues the same system of no accountability to consumers. Except that now people who have refused to participate in the scam, will be forced by a system of fines to give up what little control they have. Its a great law for insurance companies and health care providers, but it truly sucks for patients.

Well Said Sir Dan Hanegan!

What do you guys think of this opinion piece by Fox news?

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

Originally Posted by Juan Williams

"Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!

With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

These critics include Republican politicians who did not vote for ObamaCare; these are Republican governors who refuse to set up exchanges to reach their own citizens; these are people oppose expanding Medicaid to help poor people getting better health care; these are people who have never put any proposal on the table as an alternative fix for the nation’s costly health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate medical coverage and tens of millions more totally uninsured.

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. "

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What do you guys think of this opinion piece by Fox news?

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

Originally Posted by Juan Williams

"Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!

With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

These critics include Republican politicians who did not vote for ObamaCare; these are Republican governors who refuse to set up exchanges to reach their own citizens; these are people oppose expanding Medicaid to help poor people getting better health care; these are people who have never put any proposal on the table as an alternative fix for the nation’s costly health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate medical coverage and tens of millions more totally uninsured.

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. "

Obama has apologized for the fact that people cannot keep their insurance. Obama apologizes to people losing health coverage - Boston.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...351_story.html

they all say basically the same thing.

I am not an Obama fan. Wasn't a Bush Fan either.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What do you guys think of this opinion piece by Fox news?

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

Juan Williams is Fox's token liberal. He can be relied on to toe the party line.

Originally Posted by Juan Williams

"Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!

With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

That's because he did lie.

It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It doesn't "turn out" that way. It's been known it would happen since 2010. The news media just did a poor job of reporting it. And there's the "5%" lie again.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

Estimated does not mean it's true. And Obama said people would get to keep their plans if they liked them. Period.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

Crocodile tears, eh? They can't afford their insurance premiums, but Juan thinks they are shedding crocodile tears. WTF?

These critics include Republican politicians who did not vote for ObamaCare; these are Republican governors who refuse to set up exchanges to reach their own citizens; these are people oppose expanding Medicaid to help poor people getting better health care; these are people who have never put any proposal on the table as an alternative fix for the nation’s costly health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate medical coverage and tens of millions more totally uninsured.

Critics who did not vote for it don't have a right to be against it? Nice logic, Juan.

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. "

That's not a fact. It's Juan's illogical opinion.

Why do some states think it is OK to rebel against Obamacare by refusing to raise the medicaid limits? Especially when the federal government will be providing such a large portion of the funding going into the future?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by KALSTER

What do you guys think of this opinion piece by Fox news?

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

Juan Williams is Fox's token liberal. He can be relied on to toe the party line.

Originally Posted by Juan Williams

"Liar! Pinocchio! Deceiver!




With all the charges flying against President Obama in the on-going effort to stop ObamaCare it’s time for a reality check.

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

That's because he did lie.

It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It doesn't "turn out" that way. It's been known it would happen since 2010. The news media just did a poor job of reporting it. And there's the "5%" lie again.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

Estimated does not mean it's true. And Obama said people would get to keep their plans if they liked them. Period.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

Crocodile tears, eh? They can't afford their insurance premiums, but Juan thinks they are shedding crocodile tears. WTF?

These critics include Republican politicians who did not vote for ObamaCare; these are Republican governors who refuse to set up exchanges to reach their own citizens; these are people oppose expanding Medicaid to help poor people getting better health care; these are people who have never put any proposal on the table as an alternative fix for the nation’s costly health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate medical coverage and tens of millions more totally uninsured.

Critics who did not vote for it don't have a right to be against it? Nice logic, Juan.

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. "

That's not a fact. It's Juan's illogical opinion.

from what I have read...it will be more than 5% of the population...however here is a different outlook by Forbes

ObamaCare Will Raise Average Insurance Claims By 32% For Individual Coverage The Next Four Years - Forbes

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why do some states think it is OK to rebel against Obamacare by refusing to raise the medicaid limits? Especially when the federal government will be providing such a large portion of the funding going into the future?

I do not now that that is true?

Help? From someone more knowledge than I?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why do some states think it is OK to rebel against Obamacare by refusing to raise the medicaid limits? Especially when the federal government will be providing such a large portion of the funding going into the future?

Simple partisan politics. You will find that most (all?) such states have republican governors and/or republican majority legislatures. The Republican party's number one priority at the moment is to embarrass Obama (a Democrat) by doing everything possible to make Obamacare fail. I am no fan of Obamacare, but this strategy greatly offends me, there is something wrong with a political system where pain inflicted on the voters is considered far less important than pain inflicted on the political opposition.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why do some states think it is OK to rebel against Obamacare by refusing to raise the medicaid limits? Especially when the federal government will be providing such a large portion of the funding going into the future?

I do not now that that is true?

Help? From someone more knowledge than I?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/he...agewanted=all&

In case it isn't mentioned in that article, the federal govt offered federal dollars for the requested medicaid expansions. The offered money was refused exclusively by republic party governors as a political stunt, and probably to intentionally hurt the poor and disadvantaged.

There's a political game that Democrats play. They pass a tax and spend law that Republicans oppose. If Republican governors accept their share of the federal money then they are accused of hypocrisy. "Sure. You opposed the program but now you'll take the gravy for your own state."

Originally Posted by Harold14370

There's a political game that Democrats play. They pass a tax and spend law that Republicans oppose. If Republican governors accept their share of the federal money then they are accused of hypocrisy. "Sure. You opposed the program but now you'll take the gravy for your own state."

Why should you people give a shit what the politicians feel? Isn't this about people getting or not getting healthcare?

I freaking hate politics. And this petty nonsense from the "greatest nation on earth" is laughable and saddening at the same time. I feel embarrassed for you guys, really. Watching Jon Stewart is about as much as I want to partake in this. Whether he is partisan or not, one can't deny the unending torrent of incredible nonsense that politics can spout. Better to just laugh at it from my side.


PS: Don't worry, I know my own government is much worse in many ways, but even here you get basic health services for free. Even basic dental and medications.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

There's a political game that Democrats play. They pass a tax and spend law that Republicans oppose. If Republican governors accept their share of the federal money then they are accused of hypocrisy. "Sure. You opposed the program but now you'll take the gravy for your own state."

As opposed to the Republican game of fighting tooth and nail when the cameras are on and taking money when they aren't? Let's not pretend both parties don't have their share of corruption. This is the result of building a political system where the only goal is to get reelected.

Here is a cost calculator from the Washington State (which is cooperating with the AHCA) exchange website; Washington Health Benefit Exchange :: Individuals & Families Cost Estimate Calculator
Don't buy propaganda, look for yourself.

Obamacare also eliminates pre-existing considerations. I went more than 20 years without coverage because of a pre-existing. Now that I've finally started coming apart at the seams I qualify for State Medicaid. At this point it's going to cost the state several hundred thousand for immediate care needs, and cost me a foot (literally). Regardless of any insurance cost SNAFU's Obamacare will save money long term, and more importantly, lives!

You'll be losing a foot GiantEvil? That's terrible.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

You'll be losing a foot GiantEvil? That's terrible.

Fortunately amputation isn't necessitated by an infection. This is what I have; Neuropathic arthropathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically my ankle is a jacked up painful POS, and I would find a prosthetic preferable.
The video is just a random pick off YouTube.

That just sucks man. My best wishes.

Think danhanegan hit it about right.

Not sure what we really expect other than what's happened in the system in Massachusetts which was the model for the federal system. Massachusetts tells the tail of a system with early start up pains taking about a year to get sorted out, good success at getting closer to everyone insured, much better protections across the board...but one big problem--the state started with the highest cost of an state in the US, and as of last year, is still the highest cost. It did little to curb medical expenses.

It did little to curb medical expenses.

It'll take quite a few years for cost savings to show up. Right now there's a lot of pent up, unfulfilled demand built up outside the current system that is going to impact on the new system like a train.

But getting people to see doctors regularly for health maintenance for conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes management will have a big savings effect on ER and other hospital based care. My old endocrinologist worked a couple of stints in the US 30+ years ago. He said it was soul-destroying. People coming into the ER in diabetic coma or going blind or needing emergency amputations all because they couldn't manage their diabetes or afford a regular supply of insulin. The sort of thing an Australian ER sees only occasionally. (He didn't say it, but they would have been ineligible for insurance on pre-existing condition terms.) Presumably the same considerations apply to other chronic conditions.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition refusal of insurance means that people with these sorts of conditions all of a sudden become cheaper clients of the health system as a whole. Rather than intermittent episodes of expensive crisis care, they just go along to general practitioners fairly regularly with the occasional referral to a specialist. Might make those medical practices a bit busier but you can buy a lot of that kind of care for the price of a week in hospital - and a lot of weeks-in-hospital will be avoided in the longer term. But not straight away.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Think danhanegan hit it about right.

Not sure what we really expect other than what's happened in the system in Massachusetts which was the model for the federal system. Massachusetts tells the tail of a system with early start up pains taking about a year to get sorted out, good success at getting closer to everyone insured, much better protections across the board...but one big problem--the state started with the highest cost of an state in the US, and as of last year, is still the highest cost. It did little to curb medical expenses.

A national program will have a larger resource pool to draw from than any local program. How much money could be saved if for profit CEO salaries and shareholder dividend payouts were eliminated from an average consumers cost?

Add on edit; I am an explicit example of adeladys above post.

A national program will have a larger resource pool to draw from than any local program. How much money could be saved if for profit CEO salaries and shareholder dividend payouts were eliminated from an average consumers cost?

I thought a whole swag of people had already got refunds from their insurance companies because of the 80/20 rule.

The Obamacare provision that terrifies insurers

Originally Posted by Article

Medicare, the government program that provides health care services to people aged 65 and older and to the nonelderly disabled, maintains a medical loss ratio of 97-98 percent.

Health Policy Briefs

Well... Obamacare isn't perfect. Single payer would be better. Maybe that's on the way now.

Originally Posted by adelady

It did little to curb medical expenses.

It'll take quite a few years for cost savings to show up. Right now there's a lot of pent up, unfulfilled demand built up outside the current system that is going to impact on the new system like a train.

But getting people to see doctors regularly for health maintenance for conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes management will have a big savings effect on ER and other hospital based care. My old endocrinologist worked a couple of stints in the US 30+ years ago. He said it was soul-destroying. People coming into the ER in diabetic coma or going blind or needing emergency amputations all because they couldn't manage their diabetes or afford a regular supply of insulin. The sort of thing an Australian ER sees only occasionally. (He didn't say it, but they would have been ineligible for insurance on pre-existing condition terms.) Presumably the same considerations apply to other chronic conditions.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition refusal of insurance means that people with these sorts of conditions all of a sudden become cheaper clients of the health system as a whole. Rather than intermittent episodes of expensive crisis care, they just go along to general practitioners fairly regularly with the occasional referral to a specialist. Might make those medical practices a bit busier but you can buy a lot of that kind of care for the price of a week in hospital - and a lot of weeks-in-hospital will be avoided in the longer term. But not straight away.

Massachusetts system has been around for seven years and still no savings. And while I think there's tremendous value in willingness to go to a doctor to ask about a health problem one might think they have, and that will save many folks unnecessary misery and perhaps their lives, the way it's being implemented with standard test per age without individualized consideration, and multiple layers of needing permissions before seeing the right person, is going to cost just as much or more than it saves. I think there's some reasonable evidence for better health with well targeted preventative care, not so much for generalized prevention and evidence for cost savings from preventative care quite shaky and not well founded in objective evidence.

My take on reducing cost, don't test me yearly for stuff no relative has died of in the past three generations (e.g. colon cancer which I keep getting reminded about every damn month), let me get extra test for stuff they all die of (heart and prostate), and don't let me sue my doc for 10 million dollars if is reasonable diagnosis that 95 our of a 100 docs would make happened to be the wrong one. What savings will probably happen is standardizing the administrative procedures which are a mess in the US with insurance companies having to weave through 50 sets of different state regulations, fewer mistakes from prescriptions etc.

Like adelady, I find the US health system to be simply bizarre.

In Australia, we have a system whereby everyone contributes a very small portion of tax by way of a levy, which provides everyone with the care they need, when they need it. Those who are on low income or are unemployed are able to see their GP for free and their medication is subsidized. It means that even if you cannot afford health care, you will get it regardless and you will be provided with preventative health care measures. As adelady pointed out, people having limbs amputated because they couldn't afford or gain access to their GP or their medicine is so rare here that it's something that would probably make the news if it happened.

We do have private health insurance, and it is there for people who can afford it. If you cannot, then we have a stable public health system that will treat you and respond when you need it and you will get the exact same level of care. There is not such thing as "it's not covered" here, either for treatment or medication, only in some very rare instances where certain medications are on a trial basis or fairly new, but the Government is usually fairly prompt in subsidising things if there is a need or demand for it.

Reading through this thread, I will never complain about the Australian health system again.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Like adelady, I find the US health system to be simply bizarre.

In Australia, we have a system whereby everyone contributes a very small portion of tax by way of a levy, which provides everyone with the care they need, when they need it. Those who are on low income or are unemployed are able to see their GP for free and their medication is subsidized. It means that even if you cannot afford health care, you will get it regardless and you will be provided with preventative health care measures. As adelady pointed out, people having limbs amputated because they couldn't afford or gain access to their GP or their medicine is so rare here that it's something that would probably make the news if it happened.

We do have private health insurance, and it is there for people who can afford it. If you cannot, then we have a stable public health system that will treat you and respond when you need it and you will get the exact same level of care. There is not such thing as "it's not covered" here, either for treatment or medication, only in some very rare instances where certain medications are on a trial basis or fairly new, but the Government is usually fairly prompt in subsidising things if there is a need or demand for it.

Reading through this thread, I will never complain about the Australian health system again.

I want to emigrate.

Ironically it's an Australian, Rupert Murder, who owns the neo-con mouthpiece of Faux News which supports the formerly barbaric, for the privileged only, American un-health system. It would seem though that some of the rank and file of the Faux News propaganda conglomerate are feeling some guilt. So as their Fuhrer Murdouche slips into senility. occasionally they let slip a little truth.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Harold14370

There's a political game that Democrats play. They pass a tax and spend law that Republicans oppose. If Republican governors accept their share of the federal money then they are accused of hypocrisy. "Sure. You opposed the program but now you'll take the gravy for your own state."

Why should you people give a shit what the politicians feel? Isn't this about people getting or not getting healthcare?

I freaking hate politics. And this petty nonsense from the "greatest nation on earth" is laughable and saddening at the same time. I feel embarrassed for you guys, really. Watching Jon Stewart is about as much as I want to partake in this. Whether he is partisan or not, one can't deny the unending torrent of incredible nonsense that politics can spout. Better to just laugh at it from my side.


PS: Don't worry, I know my own government is much worse in many ways, but even here you get basic health services for free. Even basic dental and medications.

Unfortunately everything seems to now be "political" and about the politicians and NOT the people they are supposed to be representing. It is disgusting. NEITHER PARTY is innocent. I am NOT an Obamacare proponent. I do want health care for everyone but I feel this is NOT the answer and was not thought out at all. It has already left over 15,000,000 people with NO health insurance. It is an abomination! WE CAN DO BETTER! WE SHOULD DO BETTER!

Nephews insurance ran out. Not only did his wife and kids lose their husband and their father, they are left with a huge DEBT! It's plain ^*&)*((&**% wrong!

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I want to emigrate.

Don't get me wrong, the system is not without its faults. Long wait times for elective surgery, for example - as people with more serious health concerns will be placed before you. But if you are sick or injured, you will get the exact same level of care if you are rich or poor. If you are unemployed, doctors visits at the local GP is usually bulk billed and medication is usually very cheap (less than $5) and if it is not, then you take your receipts to the medicare office and within 15 minutes, they refund you the majority of what you payed. Even if you see a specialist privately, for example, you pay the fee and medicare refunds you the greater portion of it.

The biggest gripe most have here is the wait time for elective procedures, but if your situation changes, then you pretty much get the care instantly.

If you need CT Scans, for example, they aren't going to tell you 'sorry, you aren't covered'. You get it and it is bulk billed. If you have to pay anything, it is refunded to you if it is done in a private hospital, for example.

Here it is based on need, not what you can afford.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Reading through this thread, I will never complain about the Australian health system again.

It is gratifying then, for me, to have initiated the debacle. Your conclusion above may be the most concrete one arrived at. Thank you! jocular

Originally Posted by Tranquille

..... you will get the exact same level of care if you are rich or poor

This statement would appear to be open to question. Is it possible for a singularly rich individual to be denied the right to seek, and obtain, treatment by someone he/she feels to be more acceptable than what the "system" offers? Would that person have to seek such treatment outside the country? Would it be illegal to seek such treatment? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Tranquille

..... you will get the exact same level of care if you are rich or poor

This statement would appear to be open to question. Is it possible for a singularly rich individual to be denied the right to seek, and obtain, treatment by someone he/she feels to be more acceptable than what the "system" offers? Would that person have to seek such treatment outside the country? Would it be illegal to seek such treatment? jocular

Yep. And there wouldn't be a market for private health insurance if everybody got the same level of care.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yep. And there wouldn't be a market for private health insurance if everybody got the same level of care.

Of course there would! There would always be people who wanted better care.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yep. And there wouldn't be a market for private health insurance if everybody got the same level of care.

Of course there would! There would always be people who wanted better care.

How is "better care" equal to "the same level of care"?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How is "better care" equal to "the same level of care"?

Think of it this way.

Everyone is treated the same by airlines. Same stale bag of peanuts and Coke. Some are still willing to pay more for first class.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Tranquille

..... you will get the exact same level of care if you are rich or poor

This statement would appear to be open to question. Is it possible for a singularly rich individual to be denied the right to seek, and obtain, treatment by someone he/she feels to be more acceptable than what the "system" offers? Would that person have to seek such treatment outside the country? Would it be illegal to seek such treatment? jocular

Yep. And there wouldn't be a market for private health insurance if everybody got the same level of care.

In Australia?

The better your private health insurance, the wider your choice of options for healthcare. Quality of care is excellent generally, but better health insurance gets you more privacy and maybe better nursing attention in a private hospital. Certainly if you're wealthy you could employ your own specialling nurse provided you had some way of ensuring that such a person would be better qualified than the hospital provided staff.

But. If you're involved in major trauma your best/only option will always be a large teaching hospital, and they're run by the state governments. The best, highest qualified, most experienced surgeons (and ICU services) tend to be there even if the doctors also run private practices - often in rooms they rent in the hospital itself. There used to be some who also had other rooms elsewhere, I don't know whether that still happens.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Tranquille

..... you will get the exact same level of care if you are rich or poor

This statement would appear to be open to question. Is it possible for a singularly rich individual to be denied the right to seek, and obtain, treatment by someone he/she feels to be more acceptable than what the "system" offers? Would that person have to seek such treatment outside the country? Would it be illegal to seek such treatment? jocular

If you are rich and have health insurance, then you can usually choose your doctor or surgeon or specialist.

Those who go through on Medicare have them allotted to them. Many will see their specialist in private and then they get Medicare refunds for it and if their specialist of choice works in a public hospital in their rotation (the greater majority do), then they give you a letter and forms to make sure you are operated on by them in the public hospital and it falls under Medicare.

If you feel your specialist or surgeon in a hospital is not giving you the correct level of care or you wish to change doctors, you can actually request a different person. If you are seeing a specialist privately and you go through the public health system for surgery or certain treatments, then you can have that specialist treat you and operate on you in the public health system. What they usually do is fill in the surgical form and you take it with you to be booked in and the form will have their name on it, so you end up on their roster. Your private visits to your specialist are covered by Medicare, so they refund you around 75% of the cost of each visit or private treatment you may be getting outside of the public hospital (ie in the specialist private suite where you go for a consultation).

The system offers like 98% of doctors who also work in public hospitals as well as private hospitals.

Originally Posted by Harold

Yep. And there wouldn't be a market for private health insurance if everybody got the same level of care.

Some like to be guaranteed a private room and there are some who when having a child, want to have a private room with a queen size bed, for example.

Private health insurance also provides extra cover for dental care and eye care - especially good if your child needs bracers, for example and you get it when you want. If you go through the public health system, the wait may be a bit longer.

Essentially here, pretty much all doctors work in private and public hospitals. The level of care you get is exactly the same. If you need a 10 hour surgery, you will also get the exact same level of care in a public hospital, as you would in a private hospital. There is no "you are not covered for this particular care" in Australia. If you are privately insured and your insurance does not provide for a certain type of care or tests in a private hospital, then you are placed in an ambulance and sent to a public hospital where you get it for free if the private clinic does not have the facilities to do the tests or scans, for example.

As adelady points out, our public hospitals are usually our teaching hospitals and the professors of medicine actually practice their medicine there as they teach other doctors. Why wouldn't you want to have access to such levels of care, regardless of your wealth? Everyone deserves the same level of care.

Having been operated on and treated in our public and private health system, I actually prefer the public. While I did not get a private room, I got a twin room which had its own private bathroom, which was standard in the public hospital I was in. I was given exemplary care and was operated on by a professor who was called in because of the injuries I had sustained when I was attacked. In short, I was given the best of the best and they didn't care if I had health insurance or not. I wasn't asked that until after I came too from the surgery.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How is "better care" equal to "the same level of care"?

Think of it this way.

Everyone is treated the same by airlines. Same stale bag of peanuts and Coke. Some are still willing to pay more for first class.

Even then you can not be treated the same as another person on the airplane. I got KICKED off a United Airlines flight because my eyes were red from my glaucoma meds so they thought I had been drinking, yet people fly hammered all the time. Truth of the matter, I was up at 4:30 a.m. flew the shuttle flight to SFO, then walked OFF that plane and on to the next. I now carry a NOTES from ALL my doctors regarding my eye meds and red eyes. I had to wait in the airport 7 hours for the next flight....and YES I WAS IN FIRST CLASS. I was major pissed......my husband was even more mad than I!

AND THEY BROKE MY GUITAR!

Obama's press conference was amazing. He knew nothing about any problems with the web site until the day it was launched. Even then he thought it was just a few glitches. What is he, the mushroom president - they keep him in the dark and feed him horse manure? Who exactly is running things in that administration? I have never heard of such a management style.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama's press conference was amazing. He knew nothing about any problems with the web site until the day it was launched. Even then he thought it was just a few glitches. What is he, the mushroom president - they keep him in the dark and feed him horse manure? Who exactly is running things in that administration? I have never heard of such a management style.

You are needed more to influentially "moderate" the situation in Washington, than that of a mere talk-forum! joc

Somebody is spending a lot of time down at the bottom of the ladder of accountability.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama's press conference was amazing. He knew nothing about any problems with the web site until the day it was launched. Even then he thought it was just a few glitches. What is he, the mushroom president - they keep him in the dark and feed him horse manure? Who exactly is running things in that administration? I have never heard of such a management style.

Yep, his bill but he has no clue about any of it. He pulled it out of.....well it's on his back side, below his belt and starts with "A"....... It is RIDICULOUS!

No one responsibly implements a program and has no clue what is in it!

Isn't the "Affordable" Care Act very similar to "subprime" mortgages and simply another attempt to legislate prosperity — poor people living the so-called American Dream?

ACA won't work unless healthy young people sign up. We're talking about young adults, many working McJobs, who would rather pay the $95 or 1% penalty rather than go bankrupt trying to pay unaffordable premiums for insurance they aren't even buying now. But wait, we do have many young college grads — however, they're already burdened with receiving sub-par wages and trying to pay off heavy student loans.

Is prosperity simply a matter or properly legislating it? So far, I must say that the real-life answer is a resounding "No!".

(wild guess) Insurance company, and american hospital association lobbyist wrote the legislation.
The concept of forcing everyone to buy insurance has them dancing in the aisles.

Originally Posted by sculptor

(wild guess) Insurance company, and american hospital association lobbyist wrote the legislation.
The concept of forcing everyone to buy insurance has them dancing in the aisles.

It's crony capitalism at its finest. But Obama really wants single payer, so those people may be out of business completely when this all goes to hell.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

ACA won't work unless healthy young people sign up. We're talking about young adults, many working McJobs, who would rather pay the $95 or 1% penalty rather than go bankrupt trying to pay unaffordable premiums for insurance they aren't even buying now. But wait, we do have many young college grads — however, they're already burdened with receiving sub-par wages and trying to pay off heavy student loans ".

The subsidizes are so generous for the poor that they aren't going to go bankrupt UNLESS it's from be stricken by an unexpected medical need and either aren't covered...or have a junk insurance plan the President just said he'd maintain in the system for a while.

-
A lot of folks wanted single payer because it's the only one actually shown to reduce cost while also making medical care widely available. And if this whole think goes to hell, which I think it probably will with regard to cost continuing to raise faster than inflation, single payer will probably be what we end up with. From the consumer point of view nothing beat single payer for simplicity.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

ACA won't work unless healthy young people sign up. We're talking about young adults, many working McJobs, who would rather pay the $95 or 1% penalty rather than go bankrupt trying to pay unaffordable premiums for insurance they aren't even buying now. But wait, we do have many young college grads — however, they're already burdened with receiving sub-par wages and trying to pay off heavy student loans ".

The subsidizes are so generous for the poor that they aren't going to go bankrupt UNLESS it's from be stricken by an unexpected medical need and either aren't covered...or have a junk insurance plan the President just said he'd maintain in the system for a while.

-
A lot of folks wanted single payer because it's the only one actually shown to reduce cost while also making medical care widely available. And if this whole think goes to hell, which I think it probably will with regard to cost continuing to raise faster than inflation, single payer will probably be what we end up with. From the consumer point of view nothing beat single payer for simplicity.

So we understand the term "single-payer", (I did not, admittedly a dummy), I offer the quote below:


"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system."

Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

AFAIK, most advanced economies use a mixed public-private system. (Exclude the UK, they have parallel, entirely separate arrangements for public and private health rather than mixed arrangements like most of us do.) It certainly offers a lot more freedom to users than the US system. No one tells me which doctor I may or may not use because they are or aren't part of an insurance plan. (Although many specialists in Australia won't take patients who don't have private insurance, that's up to the doctors making their own choices, not insurance companies dictating the "choices" of insured people.)

In fact, that's the major reason why so many people here hate car accident insurance processes and workers' compensation claims - because those insurers very often do insist on particular doctors or therapists for certain things. The idea that insurance companies, or the government, might dictate doctor choice would be extremely unpopular here.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

junk insurance plan the President just said he'd maintain in the system for a while.

The President will maintain nothing for a while, other than political posturing. The plans are illegal, regardless of his proposed enforcement discretion. No insurance companies are going to go for it, after working for 3 years to comply with Obamacare. It will totally upset their rate structures, and expose them to civil lawsuits. And a one year delay is just a one year delay, which solves nothing.

The government running anything is pretty damn scary to me. They aren't doing a great job at the rest of the stuff they are supposed to be doing.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) really only improved access to care which is good. It does very little to control cost of care or quality of care. The Republican alternative would also not control costs or improve quality.

Controlling the growing burden of healthcare on western society is an important determinant of whether or not these societies survive in my opinion.

The requirement for minimum standards for insurance is a good idea.

Medicine is a high hazard industry. There is no such thing as a safe, unregulated high hazard industry anywhere in the world that I am aware of. The regulation of medicine, especially in the U.S., is minimal compared to other high hazard industries in developed nations.

The lack of regulation is directly related to both the high cost and high rate of medical errors in medicine.

Many countries do have superior cost control and equal or better quality of care compared to the U.S. -- without a single payer for insurance, including Germany, Switzerland, and Israel.

In all of these countries however, there is strong regulation of the insurance industry.

The insurance commissioner of Washington DC has been fired for straying from the party line. He made the mistake of pointing out the obvious. Obama's "fix" will not work.
D.C. insurance commissioner fired a day after questioning Obamacare fix - The Washington Post

Right wing cyber attacks on Healthcare.gov website confirmed - Las Vegas Democrat | Examiner.com