Obamacare
Quote: boymimboCanadians live longer. Its cancer survival rates are higher. Its birth mortality rates are lower. Most of its other health indicators are better than the US. I'm not cherry picking. And how do we collect data differently and live lower-risk lives?
Data collected differently.
As to lower risk, there are many examples. For one, military service in the USA vs Canada. Americans drive about 50% more miles than Canadians allowing for more accidents. The USA has more unpredictable severe weather than Canada. That is just a few.
Quote: boymimboIts cancer survival rates are higher. Its birth mortality rates are lower.
Please show any evidence that cancer survival rates are higher in Canada than the US.
The birth mortality rates are mostly dependent on the mother, not the medical care afforded to her. Having worked at an inner city hospital, the number of cocaine, heroin, alcohol, etc.. addicted mothers gives these babies no chance.... If you want to tell me that Canada has a proportional amount of these mothers, well, you would be lying!!!!
Quote: boymimboI care first off because I will likely be living in the USA again in a couple of years and it matters. Secondly, I care because there seems to be blinders on in the USA when you make the claim that any socialist system is by default a terrible one when it's clear that the system you have now is extremely expensive and unfair and with ObamaCare isn't getting better anytime soon.
Socialism is an evil system, it makes the population less well off as a whole on the "noble" idea that some should not be better off than others. Although I agree with you that Obamacare will increase costs. When you give away things the cost goes up.
Quote:American companies who offer health coverage to full time employees operate at a severe disadvantage because they are paying the bulk of your coverage at a cost of $4-$10/employee hour.
But in Canada all costs are higher because of taxes to cover health care, so it should even out. The answer here is simple, just switch from having the employer pay the health care to allowing them to dump the money into HSAs and let me pick the plan I want. I want a bare-bones plan and leave the rest in cash. Those who want more can buy more.
Quote:And while it sucks to be you waiting, that is the cost of rationing health care. Other countries do much better while keeping costs low.
Finally, we have an admission that socialized medicine leads to rationing! Sorry, but I do not want the government telling me I can wait for my allergies just because they don't think I "need" care. And I really do not want a government that thinks nothing about using the IRS to hassle political groups Dear Leader does not like telling me what I "need."
Quote:The US has this unique opportunity to look at what all of the socialized countries are doing and take the best from every system to provide a health care system that is just as good and as better than all of the rest while driving down costs. Because of all of the special interest groups and their lobbying, the result was the shit-storm called ObamaCare. Us, we're stuck with the choices we made 40+ years ago.
The only sure-fire way to lower costs is to allign the person using the service with the person paying for the service. In that case if you have allergies that are not bad you might be willing to wait months for an appointment because the care is cheaper. If you are like me and have hypersensitive hay fever you might pay more. You can choose your plan based on need, want, and *shudder* ability to pay.
Then you can get the level of service you desire. Wal-Mart or Whole Foods, you can pick or get what you like from each.
Quote: Beethoven9thObama on the Obamacare website: "I didn't build that!"
+1
Reminds me of his actual revolting, arrogant statement...
Quote: Dicenor33Western civilization always had strong medicine. It was obvious, people are better off when they lead healthy, productive lives. As American demography changes so does the attitude toward medicine. Obama care is a reflection of that.
Obamacare was sold as being "free health care" for uninsured people. Low information voters somehow thought covering more people would lower costs for everyone.
Unfortunately, most societies move towards socialism over time. They then decline in many ways. We are seeing the disaster socialism causes in Europe right now as the nations there decline in population, military, and economic importance.
Working on the Cancer survival rates. The US society reports by cancer types as does Canada, but the US stats from cancer.org breaks it down by local, regional, and distant survival rates and doesn't net it out.
Quote: boymimboI don't think the difference in rates (about 1.3/1,000) can be fully accounted for by addicted mothers. Which bears the question, "why does Canada not have the same proportional amount of these mothers?".
An interesting question. The USA has always had higher rates of addiction. One answer could be that international sellers dump more product in the USA due to proximity and desire for USD in trade. Another could be a larger black population in the USA, where the higher rates are. Yet another is the USA has a more dense population, which seems to mean more users.
Quote: AZDuffmanObamacare was sold as being "free health care" for uninsured people. Low information voters somehow thought covering more people would lower costs for everyone.
Unfortunately, most societies move towards socialism over time. They then decline in many ways. We are seeing the disaster socialism causes in Europe right now as the nations there decline in population, military, and economic importance.
You don't think America's debt is a harbinger to disaster? It's a ticking time bomb, and as America's credit rating continues to decline....
Quote: AZDuffmanObamacare was sold as being "free health care" for uninsured people. Low information voters somehow thought covering more people would lower costs for everyone.
Some conservative politicians should just run on what they believe, which is healthcare is only if you can afford it. Instead they try to sell the "if only" ideas that the marketplace will control a cost which doesn't work like it does for buying most goods and services where it actually does work well.
I'm shopping minimally, but I didn't plan on having this accident or brain tumor or cancer. Oh oh, shucks. That's what really happens.
And we still pay for the deadbeats, just when they get really sick and expensive.
Quote: boymimboYou don't think America's debt is a harbinger to disaster? It's a ticking time bomb, and as America's credit rating continues to decline....
It is, which is why Obamacare should be repealed and other entitlements cut way back. We now have more people getting checks in the USA than we do workers. But 47% of the population refuses to accept reality
Quote: boymimboFinally? An admission. Wait times = rationing. You're booked with an allergist months out because of need and demand. Wait times would be shortened with more allergists, but the way it works is that severe folks are seen first, while people with moderate reactions would wait a shorter time.
But under the private system in the USA wait times are minimal. When I last saw an allergist in college my wait was just a few days. My reaction to ragweed and dust are indeed severe, but not life-threatening. Under the socialized system, however, the allergist may be directed into something else. Some part of medicine he is not as interested in. How is that good for anyone?
Quote:If you had a severe reaction to something, likely you would end up in emerg (with the severe reaction) and you would be tested very quickly and given the correct treatment path (shots? medication?), where as if you showed up at a doctor's office and reported that you were allergic to something (you don't know what) and Bendryl or Claratin or Reactine relieved the symptions, you would be referred on the standard track with 2-3 months of waiting depending on where you live. In that case, I think it's fair. In the case of hip replacements and knee replacements, the wait times could be (and should be) much better. That's something we fail on, IMO.
If I have a reaction I go to the emergency room. There I will receive acute care. Not by an allergist, but by the ER Doctor on duty. The same ER Doctor will give acute care to the next guy with a broken leg, and the one after that who needs stitches. After the immediate situation is resolved they will refer you to someone who can figure out the "why." But 2 months to see the allergist? AYFKM? Like I said, I got in after just days. Socialized, single-payer care? You can keep it!
Quote: rxwineSome conservative politicians should just run on what they believe, which is healthcare is only if you can afford it. Instead they try to sell the "if only" ideas that the marketplace will control a cost which doesn't work like it does for buying most goods and services where it actually does work well.
It does work well, look at how the cost of LASIK has fallen. Health Care is the same as any other good or service, if the consumer who pays demands lower prices they will get them. But the payer and consumer are rarely the same.
there was an old sayig years ago by the people who really understood obamacare
"if you think healtcare is expensive now......wait till its free".
Quote: boymimboFinally? An admission. Wait times = rationing. You're booked with an allergist months out because of need and demand. Wait times would be shortened with more allergists, but the way it works is that severe folks are seen first, while people with moderate reactions would wait a shorter time. If you had a severe reaction to something, likely you would end up in emerg (with the severe reaction) and you would be tested very quickly and given the correct treatment path (shots? medication?), where as if you showed up at a doctor's office and reported that you were allergic to something (you don't know what) and Bendryl or Claratin or Reactine relieved the symptions, you would be referred on the standard track with 2-3 months of waiting depending on where you live. In that case, I think it's fair. In the case of hip replacements and knee replacements, the wait times could be (and should be) much better. That's something we fail on, IMO.
bESIDES US PAYING MORE AS I outlines in order to accomodate the new 6 million people...you are right. TYhere will be waits. And "waiting" is adverse to getting better. The amount of facilities has not grown over the last few days. Its not like currently for exampe MRI technicians are standing around their equipment sipping coffee and smoking cioggarettes. This type of equipment is booked up as it is. now unlease 6 million people who havent had medical care for a long while competeing for these resources.
leads to waits. Waiting is counter to getting well. HGow many times do you think a doctir says to a patient "you have a brain tumor...i wish we could have caught it sooner".....or do you think they are saying//"you have a braintumor and I am glad Icouldnt start treating it earlier thank goodness for the look wait you had for the MRI".
in the medical field time is of the essence.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt does work well, look at how the cost of LASIK has fallen. Health Care is the same as any other good or service, if the consumer who pays demands lower prices they will get them. But the payer and consumer are rarely the same.
Lasik went down for the same reason a simple calulator was 100.00 in 1973 and is 1.99 at walmart today.
the equipment got cheaper and more effective
the procedure got easier to do
with the new cheaper/easier equipment came better success rates
with better success rate..imalpractice events went down
these cost savings got passed down to patients
PLUS PLUS PLUS.........supply and demand....more and more doctirs were doing this procedure now compared to just a handfull.
It has nothing to do with people "demanding" lower prices. Its supply and demand for an optional procedure.
I think all the people who have open hear surgery "demand" a lower bill....so far for some reason that hasnt ocuured.
its funny...when a specialist, or complicated procedure is needed by a vip overseas, or by some organization funding a patient to get the needed operation....were these people being flown into england or canada?
is it fair that my neighbor never pays for homewners insurance for the last 30 years, and just when he starts paying for it ..a year later his house burns down and he gets to take advantage of the insurance plus all the savings he endured years before
is it fair that someone pays premium rates for the best insurance......and has to wait in line now for tests and surgery behind the new 6 million.
healthcare is going to become a meat factory.......taxing and rushing the workers, leading to increasing errors,.making the us healthcare system dumb down to the rest of the word.
Quote: LarrySand is it fair that people pay for insurance every year, and never use it. healthy as an ox till they get hit by a car at the age of 80 or just quietly die in their sleep of natural causes
is it fair that my neighbor never pays for homewners insurance for the last 30 years, and just when he starts paying for it ..a year later his house burns down and he gets to take advantage of the insurance plus all the savings he endured years before
is it fair that someone pays premium rates for the best insurance......and has to wait in line now for tests and surgery behind the new 6 million.
healthcare is going to become a meat factory.......taxing and rushing the workers, leading to increasing errors,.making the us healthcare system dumb down to the rest of the word.
No. Not fair. So then it becomes an issue of what is more fair for the majority. What would that be?
Quote: LarryS
It has nothing to do with people "demanding" lower prices. Its supply and demand for an optional procedure.
I think all the people who have open hear surgery "demand" a lower bill....so far for some reason that hasnt ocuured.
Sorry, but it is because people demanded lower prices. There are medical breakthroughs on all kinds of procedures. But in most cases people say, "the insurance is covering it" and they just do not care. But with LASIK people shopped! So you had doctors actually competing on price, advertising they would do it for less money.
As to your open-heart surgery example, if it were not covered by insurance and people shopped around prices would fall there, alternatives would be found.
Quote: steeldcoI find it somewhat odd that non of those against Obamacare want to respond to my very simple question, which was why I should have been entitled to having paid nearly nothing until I aged and took ill, costing the system (other people) nearly a million bucks. Someone explain to me why that would be fair.
I did answer it, I said health insurance could be priced and run like whole life insurance where the sooner you sign up the lower your lifetime rates.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/top-10-most-expensive-medical-procedures.aspx
It seems like all aspects of healthcare have been getting more and more expensive over the years, but I can't figure out how to follow the money to see who is at the top of the whole thing. My logic (possibly flawed?) says that increased costs are passed on down the line all the way to the end consumer.
So for example: Health insurance premiums continually increase because the price of doctor's services increases. The price of doctor's services increases because the cost of malpractice insurance increases. The cost of malpractice insurance increases because of malpractice lawsuits and claims. (And this is where it starts getting fuzzy for me in trying to figure it out).
Anyway, it seems like SOMEBODY must be at the top of the whole thing and is making the money off of all these "passed down" cost increases.
Can anybody offer up some clarity on where the increases ultimately start in the rising healthcare cost situation? Because it seems like the source of where it starts is where the money is being made.
Well, if you live in a trailer home in upper peninsula michigan, and you need heat in order to live. In order to stay alive.....does the govt get involved with the prices for heaters?
If you live in arizona, and its 110 degrees and you need an air conditioner to keep from getting heat stroke...does the govt help with controling the price of air conditioning units, or set up a beurocracy to dispense air conditioning units at a govt determined price?
What about refrigerators...we need them to keep from getting sick and avoid eaiting food that has bacteria/ mold growing on it. Is the govt setting up a website to get cheap refrigerators to very poor people somthat their lives can be spared from sometimes serious illness caused by unrefrigerated food.
look how the govt screwed up college tuitions by getting involvved. The govt makes up to 100k EASILY AVAILABLE TO ALMOST ANYONE.......AND GUESS WHAT.The schools know all to well that millions of students have acess to 100k.....and gues what tuitions are 25k per year. what a coincidence. This is what happens when govt gets involved.
In the end with the stress to he healtcare system about to occur, and the massive errors that will be committed by overworked professionals.....there wont be a savings. we all will suffer with higher costs monitarily and higher costs to our health
>>>>>>>>>
that is easy
its the legal system.
people say...."i can go to mexico and get the same operation for one third the price"
yes ..true...but in mexico...and most other countries...a hospital and a doctor cannot be sued for 100 million dollarsd
turn onthe tv in themorning, and throughout the day.....dozens of lawe firms asking for people to contact them if you took xyz medication. Dozens of different types of commericals soliciting business...becuse there is a big payday
we live in a society where if it goes to a jury..we see they will give a person who spilled mcdonalds coffee on themselves millions of dollars. What do you think they give to people who complain about unappy results in medicine.
Bush tried to pass a "tort reform" bill(putting a cap on settlements).....but it was shot down. THE TRIAL LAWYERS HAVE GREAT PULL WITH POLITICIANS'
and the high settlements lead to high insurance rates.....leading to doctors not wanting to take the chance of getting sued...so ordering a complete battery of tests to cover his ass....all leading to higher costs to everyone.
Quote: AZDuffmanI did answer it, I said health insurance could be priced and run like whole life insurance where the sooner you sign up the lower your lifetime rates.
So you're saying that would work? I would wholeheartedly disagree. If I start paying, even at an extraordinarily high rate when I take ill, there is no way that I will end up paying enough in to have covered my $1 million in care. Tell me how. Tell us what the premiums would be.
Quote: steeldcoSo you're saying that would work? I would wholeheartedly disagree. If I start paying, even at an extraordinarily high rate when I take ill, there is no way that I will end up paying enough in to have covered my $1 million in care. Tell me how. Tell us what the premiums would be.
It is the same as life insurance, but you just use it for an extreme health need. Premiums might be similar, but I cannot tell you what a premium would be as I am not an insurance underwriter. However, it would probably be a touch higher than life insurance. The daily stuff you would cover out-of-pocket via an HSA.
Remember, not everyone will need $1MM in care. In fact, most people will not. But under my system those that want coverage at a flat rate for their entire life for a fixed dollar amount could take that choice. Others might just put money aside and in effect self-insure. Choice is what it is all about.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is the same as life insurance, but you just use it for an extreme health need. Premiums might be similar, but I cannot tell you what a premium would be as I am not an insurance underwriter. However, it would probably be a touch higher than life insurance. The daily stuff you would cover out-of-pocket via an HSA.
Remember, not everyone will need $1MM in care. In fact, most people will not. But under my system those that want coverage at a flat rate for their entire life for a fixed dollar amount could take that choice. Others might just put money aside and in effect self-insure. Choice is what it is all about.
But you are saying that you have someone pay higher premiums if they start paying into the system when they're older. Nice thought but the economics would never work. There is a huge difference in providing life insurance and in providing healthcare. The risks are dramatically different. If you don't understand that then I can see why you're against trying anything new.
LOL, from Fox News.
Quote: steeldcoBut you are saying that you have someone pay higher premiums if they start paying into the system when they're older. Nice thought but the economics would never work. There is a huge difference in providing life insurance and in providing healthcare. The risks are dramatically different. If you don't understand that then I can see why you're against trying anything new.
Not a huge difference at all. In both cases you are collecting a fee to cover something up to a set maximum dollar amount. You take into account all the risk factors, then you figure the possible rate of return on the invested funds, after which you figure your overhead, and with all of that you come up with a premium.
I'm not against trying "anything" new, this idea would be new. What I am against is socialism.
Health lottery. Some win, Some lose, but as it is a lottery we don't know exactly who will win or lose.
So we all buy a ticket to offset that we might lose. WE ALL HAVE TO PLAY, NO CHOICE.
Duffman, you say everyone buy just what they need. What kind of dumb idea is this? How does that help make healthcare cheaper. You may be super healthy and still get hit by a bus.
If we all weren't thrown into a health lottery it would be like normal supply and demand and would work just as well.
Quote: rxwine
Duffman, you say everyone buy just what they need. What kind of dumb idea is this? How does that help make healthcare cheaper. You may be super healthy and still get hit by a bus.
How does people just buying what then need make things cheaper? You think something is wrong with this? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Yes, I may be super-healthy and get hit by a bus. First, the liability insurance of the bus owner is going to pay for at least some of it. If I have a high-deductible policy for hospitalization I will also be covered. This is cheaper than forcing me and millions of others to buy maternity and pediatric care we do not need or want. Substance abuse policy we neither need nor want. On and on.
You don't get that?
Quote:If we all weren't thrown into a health lottery it would be like normal supply and demand and would work just as well.
Obamacare is a "health lottery." But the government will be choosing winners and losers, not chance. I don't care for that.
If you know when you will need care for everything and what, you are smarter than everyone else who lives.
http://www.examiner.com/article/death-panels-obamacare-decide-who-lives-and-who-dies
I can just see this happening.
Government to Dr.: That's too much money to spend on a patient that's 68 years old, they're not worth saving..eff 'em
Dr. to Government: Okay
Dr. to Patient: The Government says that the treatment for your ailment is too expensive, so your just going to die. Basically you are not worth saving..sorry for the bad news.
Fearmongering.
Quote: boymimbo
Fearmongering.
Really? We already hear complaints about how insurance companies deny coverage--you think the government will be any better? Same government that has used the IRS against folks they do not like? Wake up!
Quote: rxwineA random punk with no money sucker punches you from behind for fun. The bus was just one possibility. There are all kinds of way to end up ill or injured.
If you know when you will need care for everything and what, you are smarter than everyone else who lives.
Nobody knows exactly, but you make a calculated decision. It is not possible to plan for everything, nor insure for everything.
Health insurance allows you to obtain healthcare at a reduced price.(copays and deductables)
Just as home insurance allows you to repair a damaged home at a reduced price(deductable(
you can fix your own damaged home without insurance, and you can pay as you go for medical care and get healthcare without insurance.
people use this term "healthcare" as some god given right that we all have equal access to
whyis that? some need heaters to live or freeze to death....are we obligated to chip in and get people heaters or furnaces. There are places in this country where someone will die faster from freezing conditions before they will die from their liver cancer.
insurance concept is easy. Insurance companies allow people in under certain disease states and ages based on tables that predicts costs per category of person, and then they set their premiiums based on their expected outlay of expenses for medical care and administrative costs.
Just as life insurance companies sell policies based on tables of life expectency .
But should a life insurance company be forced to sell a policy to a person on his death bed with a pre-exisiting terminal condition? NO of course.
So should an insurance company be forced to accet 600 dollars a month for someone who is diagnosed with a brain tumor needing millions in care?
If the govt wants to have a welfare fund for those people...thats fine. We already have the best medical care in the world where people from all over the world envy and are drawn to......while the govt pays for the welfare population in healthcare. If the govt wants to add terminallyill people with preexisiting conditions to their welfare rolls....thatS FINE. i am not syaing throw these people outon the street.
But the govt is turning the concept of "insurance" into something else.
People who live in flood zones cannot get flood insurance. Insurance companies can see the risk is too great. The govt doesnt make them give those policies.
Eathquake insurance in california is a joke..it vastly limits the payout of the insurance companies....because one quake could bankrupt them otherwise...and the govt doesnt make these companies provide better coverage...and most dont even provide coverage at all.
thats what "insurance" is all about. A company weighing risks and giving out policies based on the predicted outcomes going into the future.
being ordered to accept people withpre-exisiting conditions shoots the entire concept of "insurance" to hell.
the person who cant aford to fix/replace his furnace and dies from expsoure (it happens in real life.) would dissagree
the person who lives in a cardboard box near the traintracks, and gets hit by a train would love to be given a home to avoid that fate
that has nothing to do with insurance...it has to do with govt progarams to help these people
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSUMING HIGH RISKS...
for high risk people......if the govt feels they deserve "coverage",,,....the govt can help all the above survive......whether they dissagree or not
imagine the high price of your home insurance if the govt dictated that home insurance companies have to write policies for people who already have their home burnt down, orpeople in a flood zone the day before a hurricaine is due to hit,......your premiums and or deductables would go thru the roof
well then..welcome to obamacare
Quote: LarryS
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSUMING HIGH RISKS...
[..]
well then..welcome to obamacare
So do you think the insurance industry was making deals behind the scenes in SUPPORT of Obamacare? They have run a successful campaign against previous health legislation. Looks more like they signed on, than off. In fact, I don't believe it could have passed without some major support of the insurance industry.
I'm a contractor, so I pay my taxes quarterly and every time I stroke out a check to the treasury, I think here's more money being pissed away.
Quote: rxwineQuote: LarryS
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSUMING HIGH RISKS...
[..]
well then..welcome to obamacare
So do you think the insurance industry was making deals behind the scenes in SUPPORT of Obamacare? They have run a successful campaign against previous health legislation. Looks more like they signed on, than off. In fact, I don't believe it could have passed without some major support of the insurance industry.
good question from a person obviously outside of he industry
hospitals, and insurance companies are subject to governmental agency oversight, inspections, audits, regulations. There are so many govt regulations . so many minescule rules that carry large fines if they didnt totally comply 100 percent.......things would get ugly...if you know what I mean.Lets just say they weremade an offer they couldnt refuse....the offer being..shut the f ... up or possibly an inspector or auditor may just happen to stop by.....over and over...tying up legal resources, tying up time, and money, and incurring fines......This administration was very aggressive in this legislation
did they get a memo laying all this out?????Nope.
do you actually think insurance companis want to be told that they have to assume MORE risks? give me a break'
just because this was rammed down our throats with a 2000 page unreadable undecipherable piece of legislation...doesnt mean everyone wanted this.
it was well orchestrated to go thru
Quote: LarryS
did they get a memo laying all this out?????Nope.
No stain on a blue dress in the closet?
I always wonder why more people don't hide away digital recorders, instead of relying on nothing but one's word against another. Even if you can't use it in court not many people will doubt their own ears. You need friends to believe you and supporters if nothing else.
If the administration had the IRS go up against its opponents....it doesnt take a genious to see what is possible here.
the insurance companies and hospitals did what they could..they stayed out of the spotlight, stayed quiet....accepts the higher risks that the govt dictates they take on...and pass the cost on to their customers. Someone has to pay for it.
that is the crux of ovamacare....the idea of forcing the insurance companies to take on higher risks and increase their outlay of of funds to pay for medical care.......and then have them find a way to absorb that extra cost.....only 2 ways they can do that
make the customers pay more
make the doctors accept less.
so while this was billed as a way to decrease costs of healthcare....it will reduce costs per each procedure for insurance companies to pay.....but cumutively the amout of procedure will increase greatly causing a net increase in dollars spent in total......increase dollars spent lead to increased costs to us.
If you hate America that much, feel free to move to another country that's more to your liking. May I suggest Commie China or the former USSR.Quote: AlanThis is a government gun to your head, buy this or else, which sucks big time.
Quote: s2dbakerIf you hate America that much, feel free to move to another country that's more to your liking. May I suggest Commie China or the former USSR.
I plan to, when I reach retirement age I am out of here, Philippines, Thailand, Ecuador, some damn place besides here, unless it changes. What's better, is cheaper health care and cheaper everything else. Thanks for the suggestion.
