GratefulFan 28.06.2012 11:25 |
Fascinating to watch in an election year. It's held up as constitutional under powers of taxation - but if I recall democrats got it through partly by aggressively arguing it wasn't a tax! Romney's attack ads are busy writing themselves right now. What a pyrrhic victory for Obama. As a human being you want the same health care rights and security for all people of the United States that most developed nations enjoy, but as a detached observer I can't help but be fascinated by the debate. On the one hand there is this existential threat to a particularly set, even dogmatic American self definition embraced by many, but on the other that view is a choice, a political expedience really that could as easily be spun through conservative ideology, and has been in the past. Remains strange to me to see how much health care remains perceived as a commodity in the United States rather than a human advancement that should be made available to all. In some ways I think of it like knowledge, and libraries, or the internet or something. Morally and ethically and for the good of the whole society it should just be there. The whole underpinning of the American Dream is that it is equally available to all who will work hard, and yet what could be a more fundamental skewing of the playing field than unequal access to physical well being and human value and dignity stratified through wealth. It really is hard to understand in 2012. |
greaserkat 28.06.2012 11:53 |
Can't wait to hear from Microwave on this... |
GratefulFan 28.06.2012 13:26 |
And knowing our rebellious cooking device, that will be a gilded invitation for him not to! :P |
Micrówave 28.06.2012 15:25 |
What a load of crap. So we're green-lighting the developement of some bastardized health care that will probably be overturned eventually. Just because the old farts said "ok"... that "ok" is really "ok, for now." Still, it'll probably still be cheaper for me to drive 800 miles south to Mexico and get the same quality of care for less than "my cost with Obamacare". As long as this load of dung remains partisan, it will always be dogged by the other side and therefore eventually overturned anyways. At least the hearing was more exciting than most of the UEFA we've been seeing. |
The Real Wizard 28.06.2012 16:05 |
When will the rest of the civilized world learn? It's important to limit health care to those who can afford it. It's not like people should have a fundamental right to be healthy. If you've got terminal cancer and can't leave work because you'll lose your benefits to get your medication, you should be grateful that you're living your last month at the office and not at a depressing hospital. The United States may be #38 on the life expectancy list, but they are #1 in sticking to the brilliant corporate philosophy of kicking a portion of the population to the curb. Bravo. |
pittrek 28.06.2012 16:10 |
Can some American please explain an Central European guy how does the "healthcare system" in the USA work RIGHT NOW and how should it work according to Obama ? |
The Real Wizard 28.06.2012 16:20 |
I'm not American, but here we go. Current health care in the US: Nearly everything is privatized. If you qualify for health insurance and you can afford it, you can buy it. And it is expensive - an average of $3,000 per year per person. You can often get it through your job, in which case you will likely stay at that job for the rest of your working life even if you despise it, because you risk losing health coverage if you try to get another job. Otherwise - it can get incredibly expensive to see the doctor or have surgery. Well into five figures. And often, insurance companies will find ways not to give you the money you need, for one reason or another - usually because they will find some kind of "pre-existing condition." Medicare and Medicaid exist, but there are still tens of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance. The poorest 15% or so. Public health care, like it is in the rest of the civilized world, will likely never happen in the US, because the companies in the private sector will stand to lose billions. Even with these changes put into place, health care will remain private - but the costs will be far less for those who cannot or barely afford it. The right call this "socialism." Yet these same people see no problem with tax dollars bailing out bankers who caused the financial crisis. So with this passing through the supreme court, Obama has made an incredible step in moving the US into the 21st century. But the right wing politicians will continue to speak for the businessmen who finance their careers, and will do all they can to thwart any step toward universal health care. But for now, all uninsured Americans will be forced to pay for health insurance. It may be difficult for some, but the cost will be nowhere near as bad as having the hernia operation under the current system. Microwave is right - if Romney is elected, the decision will undoubtedly be reversed in his first term. But never mind the politicians. It is just startling how many unemployed Republicans will oppose this. |
Micrówave 28.06.2012 18:08 |
Yet these same people see no problem with tax dollars bailing out bankers who caused the financial crisis. FYI, no one was given a choice on this one.... it was just done. So it's not that they're ok with TARP money. Example: I worked at a bank for 13+ years that had been around since 1848. They started buying and giving bad loans. It got real ugly until another bank was given 7 Million in TARP money. They took 6 Million of that and bought out my employer and promptly gobbled it up. New bank got to ditch the bad loans and the older employees and now has their loans processed in India somewhere. All for free, basically. They made that 6 million back (and then some) and was able to pay the government back... making them one of the "good banks". Go figure. |
The Real Wizard 28.06.2012 18:12 |
Micrówave wrote: They made that 6 million back (and then some) and was able to pay the government back... making them one of the "good banks". Go figure.Ha ! But the problem is ... the government got the money back, not the actual source of the funding - taxpayers. At least Iceland got it right. They jailed all the bankers, and eventually the people took to the streets and overthrew the government. They defaulted and had a crappy year, but they're doing relatively well now. |
GratefulFan 28.06.2012 23:03 |
Not so well that they're not seriously thinking of adopting the Canadian dollar as their currency. I think it's a great idea. About time we get to boss somebody around! Maybe send some attack seals if it comes to that. |
Saint Jiub 28.06.2012 23:23 |
In 2013 I get to look forward to 40% "cadillac" excise tax on my employer provided health care insurance. I only hope I do not get double taxed on the 25% portion I pay for the health insurance. It really sucks that labor unions bought a free pass and are exempt from this "cadillac" tax until 2018. Of course, labor unions (particularly government workers) rarely pay more than 10 % of their health care premium cost, and yet they are immune to the cadillac tax ... at least until 2018. link |
john bodega 29.06.2012 00:37 |
If people can't afford healthcare then they should just fucking cook meth in the desert. |
Saint Jiub 29.06.2012 01:03 |
Evidently, the "reconciliation" legislation ... delayed the the excise tax until 2018 for everyone (and eliminated the cornhusker kickback) . Fortunately Senator Kennedy died and was replaced by a republican ... otherwise 87% would be subsidizing a free ride for the 13% (union members). link |
Holly2003 29.06.2012 01:14 |
What would Scrotie McBoogerballs think? |
thomasquinn 32989 29.06.2012 04:18 |
People, don't forget that the Republicans have some of your most precious rights at heart: Your right to die in squalid conditions from treatable diseases; the right of your children to grow up in abject poverty; your right to be left to your fate. Let's not forget, America doesn't need insurance for health care. If you're ill and you can't afford help, you can go to your church. If you're not church-going, then you're a disgrace to America and deserve to die. Yeah, long live the GOP. If there was ever an election between the filthy rich & powerful and the rest of the world, it's coming up this November. Just remember that Mitt Romney is always thinking about *you*. More specifically, he's thinking of how to make more money from you at less expense for him and his friends, but that still counts as "thinking about you". |
Saint Jiub 29.06.2012 07:39 |
No - You can go the hospital emergency room where you can find over half of the customers are illegal immigrants. |
thomasquinn 32989 29.06.2012 08:08 |
Panchgani wrote: No - You can go the hospital emergency room where you can find over half of the customers are illegal immigrants.I think even you realize the idiocy of the above remark. It does show the state of current Republican statesmanship. When faced with any plan by the Democrats, regardless of how good or bad it is, Republicans put their hands on their ears and yell "Socialism! Socialism! Communism! Illegal Immigrants! Atheism! Socialism!" |
greaserkat 29.06.2012 10:23 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Don't forget, "Gays!!"Panchgani wrote: No - You can go the hospital emergency room where you can find over half of the customers are illegal immigrants.I think even you realize the idiocy of the above remark. It does show the state of current Republican statesmanship. When faced with any plan by the Democrats, regardless of how good or bad it is, Republicans put their hands on their ears and yell "Socialism! Socialism! Communism! Illegal Immigrants! Atheism! Socialism!" |
Saint Jiub 29.06.2012 11:07 |
Free health care for illegal immigrants cost California over 1 billion dollars per year ... link |
GratefulFan 29.06.2012 12:20 |
Every health system has challenges that have to be identified and addressed as well as possible. Ontario has grappled for years with the problem of people borrowing OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) cards and obtaining health care illegally, most notably Americans. Photo cards introduced several years ago have helped, but OHIP fraud is and has been the bee in the bonnet of successive Ontario governments for years. The bottom line is that virtually every developed nation gets better aggregate health outcomes for less money per capita than the United States. The fact that the US is the last bastion in the first world of this kind of health model should give every American some pause. Respecting the unique entrepreneurial and independent American spirit does not require linking wealth to health outcomes. It's a strange Darwinian unnatural selection that can only hurt the culture over time, and perhaps already has. |
waunakonor 29.06.2012 12:32 |
Aawlink can argue about Queen stuff reasonably well, but I can't argue about this at all. I understand the issue well enough, but I have no clue which side to take. They both seem kind of evil. I guess that's just the way it is in politics for the most part. |
Micrówave 29.06.2012 12:45 |
That's ok... they're already counting the ways to make money off this....
At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016, bringing in about $54 billion to help offset the $1.7 trillion, 10-year cost of the act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.This, of course, will be the poor paying this "penalty". That's a $13,500.00 fine per person, by the way. That should fix everything. |
The Real Wizard 29.06.2012 12:52 |
Panchgani wrote: Free health care for illegal immigrants cost California over 1 billion dollars per year ... linkThat's the symptom of a bigger problem that needs to be dealt with - illegals. Depriving millions of law-abiding, hard-working citizens of health care because of an unrelated issue is not the answer. |
The Real Wizard 29.06.2012 12:53 |
GratefulFan wrote: The fact that the US is the last bastion in the first world of this kind of health model should give every American some pause.That's very optimistic of you. Most Americans can't even name 10 countries that have universal health care. They know Cuba, because Fox news keeps mentioning it in their propaganda campaign. Respecting the unique entrepreneurial and independent American spirit does not require linking wealth to health outcomes.What would the American dream be without the "kicking others to the curb" section of the manual? One cannot possibly feel satisfied about their existence without ostracizing those they feel superior to.. |
The Real Wizard 29.06.2012 13:02 |
Micrówave wrote: At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016...while 50 million others will get health care. So what's the lesser of the two evils here? |
Micrówave 29.06.2012 15:13 |
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one. And then Spock died. It wasn't Obamacare that brought him back... it was Genesis. Seriously, though, the last time someone thought like that on such a grand scale, we all almost had to learn German. |
GratefulFan 29.06.2012 15:47 |
Micrówave wrote: That's ok... they're already counting the ways to make money off this....Those estimates are over 10 years, making the average 'tax' burden about $1350 per person per year by your numbers. Further, it's calculated as a percentage of income so many are not going to be paying near even that. Many of the people who will choose the penalty over insuring themselves are the risk takers, some of whom who are young and in good health who will simply be acting mostly rationally when the penalty plus their anticipated health costs is less than the cost of insurance. The problem with the plan it seems to me is not that the poor will be unduly penalized but that the insurance companies are being asked to cover more people and more things without the infusion of cash from a percentage of the people who are less likely to cost them anything. It's a bit like an auto insurance company being asked to insure everybody at reasonable rates without collecting premiums from the best and safest drivers. It's hard to see how premiums won't be affected. Some have theorized that it's a scheme designed to stumble, paving the way to the single payer system that many really want.At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016, bringing in about $54 billion to help offset the $1.7 trillion, 10-year cost of the act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.This, of course, will be the poor paying this "penalty". That's a $13,500.00 fine per person, by the way. That should fix everything. |
The Real Wizard 29.06.2012 16:03 |
Micrówave wrote: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one. the last time someone thought like that on such a grand scale, we all almost had to learn German.This, while trying to justify not letting a portion of the population have health care while the majority already have it. The irony is staggering. And of course, Obama is the only American poor enough not to afford health care. What was the rest of the civilized world thinking !? They all must be Nazis. |
Saint Jiub 30.06.2012 01:27 |
American health care costs are robbery compared to the rest of the world ... and can only get worse. Obamacare primarily benefits lawyers, drug companies, insurance companies and government largesse. Democratic states like Illinois and California are already on the path to bankrupcy and following in the footsteps of European PIGS. Obamacare will further help to push Illinois and California into insolvency. I suppose there will be tremendous joy in Queenzone when the US eventually gets what's coming to them and joins the 3rd world, but unfortunately the Queen box sets will still not be released. link |
thomasquinn 32989 30.06.2012 09:34 |
What you seem to be completely unable to grasp, Panchgani, is what the *reason* for health care costs in the US being completely ridiculous is. The GOP has been consciously sabotaging any effort to create a decent, working healthcare system since the Lyndon Johnson administration. You can debate on the exact reasons, but the results are very clear: the people at the top of the healthcare ladder are making innumerable millions from an extortionist system, while those doctors and nurses who actually work (very, very hard) to provide healthcare can essentially choose between doing useless luxury treatments in expensive hospitals, or getting starvation wages for doing the real work. If you try to pin the trouble on 'Obamacare', you are blind. If you are claiming that "Democratic states [...] are already on the path to bankrupcy", you are not telling the whole truth. As I recall, Rick Perry has been pretty effective in leading Texas to the brink of destruction, and Texas hasn't voted Democrat since they figured out they lost the Civil War (which I'm guessing they did when Nixon pointed it out to them). Also, California has had a Republican governor for quite some years now - you might actually know him: Arnold Schwarzenegger, who used to be a friend of Bush's. The whole of the U.S. is heading towards ruin right now, and the reason is simple: since 2001, there has been no competent government. Since 2008, there has hardly been any government, because the current GOP would rather see the U.S. completely destroyed than reach any sort of compromise with the Democrats that might help the country. As far as I am concerned, the vote in November is between 1880s style elitist corruption (Romney) or a president who has shown himself to be better than anything the GOP has offered since Theodore Roosevelt. I will guarantee you this: if Romney is elected, you will have war with Iran and Syria before 2015, soaring unemployment and more poverty, more breaches of your civil rights like under Bush, and the *very same senior officials* who made the Bush-administration such a disaster. |
thomasquinn 32989 30.06.2012 09:36 |
"better than anything the GOP has offered since Theodore Roosevelt" I suppose it could be argued that Eisenhower was a fairly good president, so I'd be willing to change this to "better than anything the GOP has offered since Eisenhower". |
Saint Jiub 30.06.2012 21:10 |
... Perry leading Texas to the brink of destruction Really? Texas is one of the better states with a AA++ credit ratings. Illinois and California have the worst credit ratings. How is Romney corrupt? Did he issue an executive order to cover up "Fast and Furious"? Finally, a trivia question ... who recently stated the following? "A man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold." |
Saint Jiub 01.07.2012 15:52 |
Obamacare left items 1, 2, and 4 unchanged or worse (per link in previous post) as reasons for the excessive cost of healthcare in the US: 1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services; 2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems; 3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries; 4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative. My comments ... 1. The healthcare industry wrote the Obamacare to their advantage. Americans still can not buy prescription drugs from Canada. Americans still can not buy insurance over state lines (still overly regulated to discourage competition). 2. Obamacare will add even more administrative costs. 3. USA! USA! 4. No tort reform was enacted to protect doctors. Slimeball lawyers like John Edwards can still earn millions (at the expense of the vast majority of Americans) from the "lawsuit lottery" American justice system (more than enough to finance a presidential campaign). Obamacare needs to be repealed and eventually replaced (without further following in the footsteps of Greece) with cost-effective legislation that covers all Americans AND significantly reduces the massive non-value added costs of the present healthcare system. |
The Real Wizard 01.07.2012 19:52 |
Instead of complaining about what's wrong ... Can someone provide a better solution? Given the current system where the overwhelming majority of health care is provided by the private sector, what else could Obama have done to ensure every American receives health care? |
tero! 48531 02.07.2012 00:41 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Instead of complaining about what's wrong ... Can someone provide a better solution? Given the current system where the overwhelming majority of health care is provided by the private sector, what else could Obama have done to ensure every American receives health care?Naturally he should have cut the taxes of the richest 1% of the population, which would in the future have trickled down to create millions of new jobs and make every American wealthy enough to afford the private medical care of their choice. It's worked so well until now! |
thomasquinn 32989 02.07.2012 08:55 |
tero! 48531 wrote:Yeah, Reagan brought us so much...American-armed/trained islamism, the Religious Right in power, the credit crunch, the worst increase in budget deficit in any one presidential term...if we dug him up and made him president again, he couldn't possibly do any worse.The Real Wizard wrote: Instead of complaining about what's wrong ... Can someone provide a better solution? Given the current system where the overwhelming majority of health care is provided by the private sector, what else could Obama have done to ensure every American receives health care?Naturally he should have cut the taxes of the richest 1% of the population, which would in the future have trickled down to create millions of new jobs and make every American wealthy enough to afford the private medical care of their choice. It's worked so well until now! |
thomasquinn 32989 02.07.2012 08:57 |
Panchgani wrote: Obamacare left items 1, 2, and 4 unchanged or worse (per link in previous post) as reasons for the excessive cost of healthcare in the US:1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.My comments ...1. The healthcare industry wrote the Obamacare to their advantage. Americans still can not buy prescription drugs from Canada. Americans still can not buy insurance over state lines (still overly regulated to discourage competition).2. Obamacare will add even more administrative costs.3. USA! USA!4. No tort reform was enacted to protect doctors. Slimeball lawyers like John Edwards can still earn millions (at the expense of the vast majority of Americans) from the "lawsuit lottery" American justice system (more than enough to finance a presidential campaign).Obamacare needs to be repealed and eventually replaced (without further following in the footsteps of Greece) with cost-effective legislation that covers all Americans AND significantly reduces the massive non-value added costs of the present healthcare system.I'm not claiming Obamacare is a perfect solution (how could it be, considering that it was essentially governor Mitt Romney who came up with it?), I'm saying it's a step in the right direction, just like Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid were steps in the right direction. The thing is, Senate- and House Republicans will not allow anything that *really* works to pass. What you should tell me is how it is possible that *every single* European country has a far better healthcare system than the U.S. Even Greece, on the edge of default, can run laps around the U.S. system of healthcare. Hell, I know for a fact that certain rich Americans go to Cuba (of all places) for certain treatments. |
tcc 02.07.2012 09:28 |
I got a feel of why the health care system is so costly in the US from an article in one of the Harvard Business Review magazines. A patient sees a doctor. Assuming he is employed, the patient's company pays the insurance company for the medical expenses. The doctor is paid by the hospital or clinic. The hospital maintains a system (staff and computer) to keep track of what they pay the doctor and the amount to be claimed from the insurance company. The insurance company maintains a system (staff and computer) to keep track of how much to pay the hospital/clinic and to collect from the patient's company. The result: The patient does not feel the cost of seeing a doctor because he does not pay the doctor directly. The doctor does not feel the guilt of any excessive charging because the patient is not the one paying the bill. Between the hospital and the insurance company are the huge cost of administering the collection and payment of medical cost. |
Micrówave 02.07.2012 10:12 |
TQ wrote: The whole of the U.S. is heading towards ruin right now, and the reason is simple: since 2001, there has been no competent government. Since 2008, there has hardly been any government, because the current GOP would rather see the U.S. completely destroyed than reach any sort of compromise with the Democrats that might help the country.So if we shoot all the Republicans.then everything will be Hunky Dory? (Unemployment rate WOULD decrease significantly. He may be right.) |
thomasquinn 32989 02.07.2012 12:34 |
Micrówave wrote:So if you refuse to elect hyperpartisans on either side (and you will have to admit that hyperpartisanship has marked the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans more than their Democratic opponents), that might help. I'm not saying you have to vote Democrat, I'm saying that if your district has one of those wingnuts up for election, better vote for a 3rd party candidate.TQ wrote: The whole of the U.S. is heading towards ruin right now, and the reason is simple: since 2001, there has been no competent government. Since 2008, there has hardly been any government, because the current GOP would rather see the U.S. completely destroyed than reach any sort of compromise with the Democrats that might help the country.So if we shoot all the Republicans.then everything will be Hunky Dory? (Unemployment rate WOULD decrease significantly. He may be right.) |
Micrówave 02.07.2012 14:41 |
Yes, TQ, but this is never going to happen. The 3rd party candidate will ALWAYS be the 3rd party candidate. That's why we should just vote for Newt Gingrich and hope he has that Moon Colony up and running soon. I'm packed & ready to go. |
Saint Jiub 02.07.2012 19:37 |
tcc wrote: I got a feel of why the health care system is so costly in the US from an article in one of the Harvard Business Review magazines. A patient sees a doctor. Assuming he is employed, the patient's company pays the insurance company for the medical expenses. The doctor is paid by the hospital or clinic. The hospital maintains a system (staff and computer) to keep track of what they pay the doctor and the amount to be claimed from the insurance company. The insurance company maintains a system (staff and computer) to keep track of how much to pay the hospital/clinic and to collect from the patient's company. The result: The patient does not feel the cost of seeing a doctor because he does not pay the doctor directly. The doctor does not feel the guilt of any excessive charging because the patient is not the one paying the bill. Between the hospital and the insurance company are the huge cost of administering the collection and payment of medical cost. Actually, people who do not have health insurance get charged much more. Perhaps it is because people have less bargaining power than insurance companies, and/or because hospitals (for example) charge more to make up for those who can't pay. I think that you are right that people are less likely to care about the overall cost if the insurance company is paying for most or all of the cost. |
Saint Jiub 02.07.2012 20:03 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Panchgani wrote: Obamacare left items 1, 2, and 4 unchanged or worse (per link in previous post) as reasons for the excessive cost of healthcare in the US:1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.My comments ...1. The healthcare industry wrote the Obamacare to their advantage. Americans still can not buy prescription drugs from Canada. Americans still can not buy insurance over state lines (still overly regulated to discourage competition).2. Obamacare will add even more administrative costs.3. USA! USA!4. No tort reform was enacted to protect doctors. Slimeball lawyers like John Edwards can still earn millions (at the expense of the vast majority of Americans) from the "lawsuit lottery" American justice system (more than enough to finance a presidential campaign).Obamacare needs to be repealed and eventually replaced (without further following in the footsteps of Greece) with cost-effective legislation that covers all Americans AND significantly reduces the massive non-value added costs of the present healthcare system.I'm not claiming Obamacare is a perfect solution (how could it be, considering that it was essentially governor Mitt Romney who came up with it?), I'm saying it's a step in the right direction, just like Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid were steps in the right direction. The thing is, Senate- and House Republicans will not allow anything that *really* works to pass. What you should tell me is how it is possible that *every single* European country has a far better healthcare system than the U.S. Even Greece, on the edge of default, can run laps around the U.S. system of healthcare. Hell, I know for a fact that certain rich Americans go to Cuba (of all places) for certain treatments. Eventually Republicans (especially) and Democrats will need to stop playing chicken with the economy and work to reduce the massive spending deficit before the US credit rating is further reduced. However, generally tea party candidates never compromise (leading to the summer 2011 credit rating reduction). Perhaps the Republican tea party candidates will eventually be voted out of office. However, probably nothing will happen until much later than 2013 AND after the US credit rating is again further reduced. |
tero! 48531 02.07.2012 23:03 |
Panchgani wrote: Actually, people who do not have health insurance get charged much more. Perhaps it is because people have less bargaining power than insurance companies, and/or because hospitals (for example) charge more to make up for those who can't pay.I think that you are right that people are less likely to care about the overall cost if the insurance company is paying for most or all of the cost.That of course mean that this should be taken one step further by the next president: Replace the insurance scheme with universal healthcare paid by taxes. It doesn't stop people from buying private medical services if they choose to, and (almost) everybody wins. Those with the lowest income win because they can afford healthcare. Those with higher income win because private doctors and insurance companies are going to drop their prices when they compete for the customers. The only people really losing are the shareholders of health insurance companies, but I don't see that as a huge problem. |
beautifulsoup 04.07.2012 22:00 |
All I want is to not to be "denied coverage" for "previous conditions." Are you ready to hear why I've been denied coverage? Get this: tinnitus (as a result of having been on indocin for TWO DAYS), and I had physical therapy on my knee, which RESOLVED THE ISSUEs I was having with my knee. Sheesh. Meanwhile, I pay nearly 25% of my monthly income for my unemployed husband's insurance premiums. This is the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in over 15 years. |
Micrówave 06.07.2012 15:22 |
Dump him... find someone who has a job. Better yet, I'd date a doctor if I were you. Because we're not going to get this right anytime soon. |
GratefulFan 06.07.2012 15:40 |
beautifulsoup wrote: All I want is to not to be "denied coverage" for "previous conditions." Are you ready to hear why I've been denied coverage? Get this: tinnitus (as a result of having been on indocin for TWO DAYS), and I had physical therapy on my knee, which RESOLVED THE ISSUEs I was having with my knee. Sheesh. Meanwhile, I pay nearly 25% of my monthly income for my unemployed husband's insurance premiums. This is the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in over 15 years.My cousin got denied for hay fever. The whole thing is so deeply, incomprehensibly immoral that it's almost impossible to believe. |
tero! 48531 07.07.2012 02:10 |
GratefulFan wrote:Did I understand this correctly:beautifulsoup wrote: All I want is to not to be "denied coverage" for "previous conditions." Are you ready to hear why I've been denied coverage? Get this: tinnitus (as a result of having been on indocin for TWO DAYS), and I had physical therapy on my knee, which RESOLVED THE ISSUEs I was having with my knee. Sheesh. Meanwhile, I pay nearly 25% of my monthly income for my unemployed husband's insurance premiums. This is the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in over 15 years.My cousin got denied for hay fever. The whole thing is so deeply, incomprehensibly immoral that it's almost impossible to believe. You're saying that people are being denied ANY medical insurance whatsoever, because they have a pre-existing medical condition of some sort? (I could sort of understand if it limited the coverage in illmesses directly related to it...) No wonder people have to sue McDonald's for burning them with coffee. How else could they afford to pay for the doctor? |
GratefulFan 07.07.2012 05:46 |
Yes, private insurance companies can and do deny any and all coverage. They simply refuse to take you on as a customer. In the case of my cousin she was forced into the state run "high risk" (hay fever!) pool where the coverage was crap and the fees exorbitant. |
tero! 48531 07.07.2012 06:43 |
That's just ridiculous. You'd think that thousands of dollars worth of isurance premiums each year would be more than emough to cover the risk of potential medical bills, but I guess they are only interested in making as much money as possible, with as little effort as possible. I suppose it's fairly easy to deny coverage of everything if you want to... Cancers are pre-existing conditions (they were just too small to detect!), most diseases can be caused by personal lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking) which aren't covered, etc. Profiting from medical insurance must be one of the easiest ways to make money. |