Health care outside the U.S.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

I think y'all catch cancer earlier 'cos you catch cancer quicker stressing about those hospital bills.

Never thought of it that way.

Lee

[newsvx]

This has been a very interesting discussion - with no yelling, even! What a novel approach and quite different from some of our recent town hall meetings Congressmen have had.

It strikes me that the original questions posed were excellent, and the answers received from our "out-of-country" brethren was not was expected when they were asked. (I remember the argument earlier that the people from Canada and other countries were coming to the US for medical treatment because of the long waits in their country; therefore the US system is better.) In particular, the question: "......would you change your system for one like the current US system?" As was pointed out, no one would opt for the "private" insurance vs the "public" insurance.
An excellent point was made also about once we (in the US) start with a private insurance policy, it is most likely that the cost will rise, and rise quickly. My 15 years if working for General Dynamics bears that out. And if you become very ill, you will likely be dropped from coverage. Seen it happen a lot. And a friend told me just today that last year he and his wife were in Florida visiting and she had a severe heart problem. His insurance company (Blue Cross) told them, "no, we will not pay the medical bills, because the issue (heart problem) should have been taken care of in Virginia of before they left for Florida! Now what is wrong with THAT picture. The lady also needs a hip replacement, but is concerned about even having that done (in Virginia, of course), because their insurance coverage is for 80% only (standard here in the US unless you can afford a secondary insurance policy), and she still needs to pay off the $11,000 medical bill from Florida. Now, no one can tell me that is right! Not even Lee. Is this just an anomaly? Not by a long shot! It happens all the time.
Another friend of mine just found out that his insurance company will not pay for a vaccination against the "shingles" (the government MEDICARE program now covers that!!). A preventative measure, but they won't pay for it. IF the person happens to catch shingles later in life, they are shooting the odds they won' be the insurance company then.

Seems pretty clear that a public system is better, especically when those that have it are not willing to opt for the private (I'll take you for every penny I can) insurance companies. No wonder the insurance companies are spending $1.4 Million a day to fight the proposed health care changes!

[Subie59]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/op...stof.html?_r=1

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Subie59

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/op...stof.html?_r=1

Not a relevant source for our dicsussion. First its an (opinion) in the most liberal newspaper in the US.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by newsvx

Seems pretty clear that a public system is better, especically when those that have it are not willing to opt for the private (I'll take you for every penny I can) insurance companies. No wonder the insurance companies are spending $1.4 Million a day to fight the proposed health care changes!

I TOTALLY disagree. You obviously processed the data here far differently than I did. Again--would you be willing to pay 23 percent of your GROSS income, say again GROSS, for health coverage. I know that is NOT the current projection by the foreign examples bear this out over time. I don't think most Americans would tolerate this high level of additional taxation. Also, again--RESULTS, are proof of what is the best system. Remember survival rates in the US are highest for most types of cancer and serious illness. And, when has our government been an effective manager on any real program?

I repeat my position very clearly. What we need FIRST is legal reform which will dramatically lower all rates associated with healthcare. THEN we can consider what to do about people NOT covered. We SHOULD NOT cover illegals or FORCE anyone that does not want to buy insurance when they can afford it. Sooooo, the real uninsured figure is between 10-17M.

As to demonstrators and money spent on demonstrations. WHO is bussed to the sites and WHO has professionally printed placards versus hand made. The AGAINST demonstrators are spontaneous, coming in their own vehicles for the most part, and have hand made signs. The FOR demonstration have professionally made signs, most are BUSSED and many are actually union representatives. WHY union?? Read the Bill. First they owe the Democrats and are buying Obamination AND their lucrative contract lifetime medical coverage is specifically protected by the bill.

Lee

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I TOTALLY disagree. You obviously processed the data here far differently than I did. Again--would you be willing to pay 23 percent of your GROSS income, say again GROSS, for health coverage. I know that is NOT the current projection by the foreign examples bear this out over time. I don't think most Americans would tolerate this high level of additional taxation. Also, again--RESULTS, are proof of what is the best system. Remember survival rates in the US are highest for most types of cancer and serious illness. And, when has our government been an effective manager on any real program?

I repeat my position very clearly. What we need FIRST is legal reform which will dramatically lower all rates associated with healthcare. THEN we can consider what to do about people NOT covered. We SHOULD NOT cover illegals or FORCE anyone that does not want to buy insurance when they can afford it. Sooooo, the real uninsured figure is between 10-17M.

As to demonstrators and money spent on demonstrations. WHO is bussed to the sites and WHO has professionally printed placards versus hand made. The AGAINST demonstrators are spontaneous, coming in their own vehicles for the most part, and have hand made signs. The FOR demonstration have professionally made signs, most are BUSSED and many are actually union representatives. WHY union?? Read the Bill. First they owe the Democrats and are buying Obamination AND their lucrative contract lifetime medical coverage is specifically protected by the bill.

Lee

Lee,
I certainly respect your right to your opinion, but I think you have a lot of misinformation that you are using. And I don't kid myself into thinking I'll ever change your mind. But that said. You need to check the facts on just who is encouraging the protesters against any health care reform. Most is well planned, and when someone gets up and shouts / yells in protest to preclude anyone else speaking, I have absolutely no respect for them.

The money I was speaking of is the lobbying money the insurance companies are currently spending ($1.4M per day) to lobby congress and others in fighting a public plan as well as changes to the law to preclude such things as not providing insurance (or offering it at an unaffordable high cost) due to pre-existing condition, being able to just cancel someone's insurance if they become very ill, etc. I just don't see how you can not support those things even if you don't support a public option.

As for government programs, I like my MEDICARE just fine. Does it have problems? Sure, just like ANY large program, government or private operation. And I still use TRICARE (military medical insurance). I have had VERY few problems with that for me and my family for some 35 years. Yep, that's a government program too ......

As for tort reform. I too agree that needs reform too!!! Absolutely. But you are kidding yourself if you think tort reform will significantly lower insurance company rates on its own. Remember they are in it for profit.

As for our friends from other countries, I think I read it perfectly correct when not a one was willing to give up their government run medical coverage for our private insurance coverage. I don't know what you read. And yes, I would pay higher taxes for a public plan. As one gentleman said, the cost is small (even at 23 % ( I don't agree with your math)) if under a private plan all of a sudden cancels you coverage and causes you to be bankrupt and lose everything.

Lee, we can disagree, and I'll still respect you in the morning ..... but don't let these insurance companies fool you. If you agree that there needs to be health care reform, then list what, in your view , needs to be reformed under a private system. And I assume you will trust the insurance companies to do it at a less cost to the consumer .. Also, how would you resolve the following:

A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by devastating bills.

Harry

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by newsvx

The money I was speaking of is the lobbying money the insurance companies are currently spending ($1.4M per day) to lobby congress and others in fighting a public plan as well as changes to the law to preclude such things as not providing insurance (or offering it at an unaffordable high cost) due to pre-existing condition, being able to just cancel someone's insurance if they become very ill, etc. I just don't see how you can not support those things even if you don't support a public option.

As for tort reform. I too agree that needs reform too!!! Absolutely. But you are kidding yourself if you think tort reform will significantly lower insurance company rates on its own. Remember they are in it for profit.

As for our friends from other countries, I think I read it perfectly correct when not a one was willing to give up their government run medical coverage for our private insurance coverage. I don't know what you read. And yes, I would pay higher taxes for a public plan. As one gentleman said, the cost is small (even at 23 % ( I don't agree with your math)) if under a private plan all of a sudden cancels you coverage and causes you to be bankrupt and lose everything.

Lee, we can disagree, and I'll still respect you in the morning ..... but don't let these insurance companies fool you. If you agree that there needs to be health care reform, then list what, in your view , needs to be reformed under a private system. And I assume you will trust the insurance companies to do it at a less cost to the consumer .. Also, how would you resolve the following:

A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by devastating bills.

Harry

I think you need to do your research again. Some of it is true while other is false and/or very misleading. You imply that Insurance companies are the biggest advertisers for or against. You need to check this out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009080403704

I have a question for you as to why Labor Unions are spending so much money, time and effort with ads and actually bussing people to the town hall meetings. They are not adversely effected by the legislation--their golden nets are protected under the "reinsurance" provisions of the bill along with others. They get the best of BOTH worlds. You reckon maybe they are trying to pay back Obamination for past considerations and buy him for future considerations. I suspect so.

My math on foreign costs may be admittedly misleading but it is not incorrect. As indicated the cost is 13 percent with employers paying and additional 10, so the EFFECTIVE cost IS 23 percent as we know that companies and corporation do not pay taxes. Its just another cost of doing business that is passed on to consumers.

AND--prices would definitely go down with tort reform. Yes, insurance companies are in business to make money, but capitalistic competition is a wonderful thing. Over time it would definitely force decreases in costs.

Now how about the deal Obamination struck with the pharmceutical companies in order to get their endorsement. That alone would ensure medicine costs at the current status quo. Check with our foreign friends--their medicine of the same kind is much cheaper than ours---WHY??? Because of our lawyers---AGAIN--TORT REFORM should be first.

Oh, one of the main objections these so called rowdy town hall demonstrators have with the current legislation really has very little to do with healthcare reform, but the many, many provisions that include other liberal agenda not even related to health care. Do you want the government to have "REAL TIME ACCESS" to your financial records??? (page 59, Sec 163, Lines 21-24 HR Bill 3200) Read direct real time access to your bank account. Now what do with healthcare reform. That is just one of many examples.

Lee

[sowise]

I tend to very much agree with lhopp77 on this one.

I don’t like how they are trying to ram rod this health care bill through in a short time I don’t like how they don’t even bother to understand the details of the bill before going to vote on it. It would be like buying a car with no information about it would you do that? I wouldn’t. The people currently in the government don’t really care about the uninsured or health care they have other agendas.

Health care needs reform there is no disagreement about that on either side of the isle. The problem is you don’t scrap the whole system without at least attempting to address the flaws in your current system. Do you trade a car in for a new one every time something breaks? Or do you try to fix it? (kind of odd to be part of an SVX site if you don’t like working with something old and trying to keep it good or make it better).

Tort reform would make a big difference in health care insurance rates. Also we are already paying for the uninsured because the hospitals and medical industry pass their debt on to those of us who do have insurance. This goes for illegal immigrants too since they aren’t insured. Part of health care reform needs to be tied to immigration reform. We can’t keep paying for people who aren’t in this country legally and nor should we.

Ok so people like their SS, Medicare, and Medicaid programs great I have no problem with that EXCEPT how poorly the government is handling and mismanaging the tax payer funding for those programs. They haven’t been able to run those efficiently because they are too greedy and it is easier for them to cut funding to them and use the money elsewhere while still raising taxes to try and help fund those programs. So give the money back to those programs and analyze the deficiencies in those programs in their current condition and work at repairing or improving upon them. Don’t get me started on VA health care which has always been substandard but I suppose better than nothing at all which is not really much of an argument in favor of it.

Government needs to make laws and guidelines that insurance companies should have to follow. So they can’t refuse claims or consider a hip replacement or something similar as an elective surgery. The laws and guidelines that could easily be written and enforced would not allow insurance companies to refuse any preconditions or age based discriminations.

Pharmaceutical companies are hugely corrupt and they don’t make medicine because it helps people be healthy they make it because there is good money in it. Especially if they hold the patent on it for specified durations which they should be able to hold it but that doesn’t mean they should be able to have such varying disparities in costs for the same medication. Some countries it costs little to nothing for certain medications and that is because they have passed the higher cost on to other countries like us.

Get itemized bills from your hospital and you will see things like $5 per pill for Tylenol etc. A shared room at the hospital can end up costing as much as staying in a Four Seasons Hotel. That’s because hospitals are passing the buck too.
I too am tired of the ghetto’s and the ghetto life style (by ghetto I do not refer to any specific race because they have every make and race in different parts of the country in different types of ghettos). The welfare system needs to be reformed I am tired of having my hard earned money spread to those who do nothing for it. The single or even married couples who keep having kids to be able to get more money from the government. This also goes for the kids who are placed into inadequate foster homes so the foster parent(s) can get another check.

I am tired of paying for a better life style for convicts in prison than is provided for the homeless. I am tired of housing illegal immigrants in our prisons.

I listen to liberals and democrats and I am completely dumbfound by their arguments and logic not only on health care but many other social topics. I do not trust the people running things currently in the government. They live in their own little bubbles. I have seen senators and generals and other government officials come to my work for demonstrations and such, and how much BS they are fed by others and how socially awkward they are when it comes to dealing and being with regular people which is rare because everything is scripted and rehearsed and cleaned and prepped and primped. They are too stupid to see through it all anyway and see only what others have provided for them to see and hear.

There are just too many issues that in my mind are linked indirectly together so trying to fix one thing needs to have a ripple effect out to repair and fix other things. But I hold no illusions that anyone in our current government can or will fix anything.

[Sybaris]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Do you want the government to have "REAL TIME ACCESS" to your financial records??? (page 59, Sec 163, Lines 21-24 HR Bill 3200) Read direct real time access to your bank account. Now what do with healthcare reform. That is just one of many examples.

Lee

Yeah, my parents forwarded me the same email to which I promptly responded with an application that places an icon on their tool bar that automatically checks where it registers on the urban legend radar. It should be a required PC load for every person over 65.

Regardless, nothing new here. IRS and credit reporting agencies already have real time (real time or snail time who cares) access to your financial records.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twe...about-hr-3200/

Step away from the fear mongers.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Sybaris

Yeah, my parents forwarded me the same email to which I promptly responded with an application that places an icon on their tool bar that automatically checks where it registers on the urban legend radar. It should be a required PC load for every person over 65.

Regardless, nothing new here. IRS and credit reporting agencies already have real time (real time or snail time who cares) access to your financial records.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twe...about-hr-3200/

Step away from the fear mongers.

People that can't read and comprehend try my patience. Your post implies that what I posted was fiction. You didn't read all of it. All you have to do is Google the bill--HR3200 and compare it with the items in your email.

IRS and credit agencies DO NOT have REAL TIME access to your financial records. Credit agencies only operate on data reported to them or acquired from public records and have absolutely NO access to your bank accounts. The IRS has very limited access and only able to obtain data during audits. Yes, certain monetary transactions are reportable, but it is NOT the same as real time access.

Don't take my word for it--pull up the bill and do the research. Quit believing the garbage your political heroes are feeding you and really figure out what is going on.

Don't even trust fact check--DO THE RESEARCH AND READ.

Lee

[Stilor]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Don't take my word for it--pull up the bill and do the research. Quit believing the garbage your political heroes are feeding you and really figure out what is going on.

Don't even trust fact check--DO THE RESEARCH AND READ.

Lee

Lee,

I am not a big fan of what the administration is doing, but did you actually read the bill yourself? Probably you need to explain it to me, how this quote (page 59, sec 163, lines 21-24):

Originally Posted by HR3200

‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

is a "real-time access to your finances"? To me, it looks like one needs to have a checking account enrolled to use this government health insurance. Pretty much the same as paying your provider with a debit card, IMHO - with the only difference that the provider would be the government. Those concerned with privacy could easily open a separate account dedicated to healthcare-related payments and enroll that account, not the primary one.

Moreover, if you go to the heading of this subsection, it says that government has to establish such procedures, but nowhere does it say that these procedures would be mandatory for the end-user. It may be the same choice you have with your utilities: either pay by sending checks, or allow them to deduct from a checking account.

Am I missing something?

And, the only mention of "real-time something" is on page 58, sec 163, lines 5-15:

Originally Posted by HR3200

‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;
‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;

(D) looks like a semi-mandatory preauthorization for services. Actually, this item has always made me uneasy in the health insurance agreements: the insurer has the right to revoke the preauthorization after the service was rendered, leaving the insured responsible. I wish they made such preauthorizations mandatory (except for emergency services) and binding for insurers.

(E) is even more obvious and fair.

[rbalach]

Sorry if this was already asked/answered here:

Is the public health care system offered in your country breaking even ? ie: money taken from your paychecks is equal to or more than the system costs
How often do the raise taxes to try and pay for the system ?

The reason for asking is our govt here is notorious of 'estimating' the cost of a program and then a few years down the line finding out that it costs anywhere from 2-10times more than they 'predicted'. For example:
- social security
- medicare
- medicaid
- prescription medicine
- the iraq war
All the above mentioned are soon to be broke or have cost a lot more than they predicted.

[Myxalplyx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzr7Nnxjlfs

[lhopp77]

Check out which country has the highest survivor rate for more serious illnesses. Again, the end result should be an effective measure of the systems effectiveness.

Lee

[Subie59]

You just don't get it do you? The entire western industrialized world shakes it's head in disgust over the US health care system. Your antiquated system takes greed to whole new levels, where money for the very rich insurance companies is more important than the health and ultimately the lives of American citizens. A recent report stated that 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. How can anyone argue that this is a good system.
Oh sure if you are stinking rich and get a serious illness you might have a better chance of surviving in the US. You won't have any money left when the American health Insurance companies are through with you but who cares.

So your system is great for that one percent of your population that has more money than the bottom 95 per cent. yea, great system.
I think I'll stay where I am, thanks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...58G6W520090917