Health care vent

The ACA is not "free" insurance, it is a series of reforms that require certain things and a degree of fairness from the "for profit" insurance companies-chiefly that they not take your money for years or decades, continually raising one's premiums, only to drop you, refuse many treatments for obscure reasons, and do anything to be sure you get the least from them. Then after you are sick and uninsured, no chance of getting insured again due to pre-existing conditions. I pay over 25k with $2500 deductible this year for my wife and myself. We have been managing, but another huge increase, and I don't know if we can. We are pretty healthy, but like all people our age, not without problems over the years. No way to get anything else, and we are like millions of self-employed, or people that don't get insurance through work, or small businesses. AND WE ARE THE FORTUNATE ONES, because we are debt free and have some resources. We, like so many, just need fairness-to pay a fair price for decent coverage.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas started mailing out rebate checks to customers this week because they did not spend 80% of premiums on actual healthcare-a result of the ACA. Ask one of them if they like the ACA.

Ask the people in Massachusetts how they like their health care coverage-the same basic plan as the ACA.

Ask a real Canadian how they feel about their "socialized" healthcare. My friend from Vancouver Island, BC is visiting and sitting here right now-he pays $69 a month, and likes it just fine and is amazed that there are people that wouldn't want the same. I know a LOT of Canadians, and they think we are out of our minds for what we put up with. The same is true around the world-all the scary talk from the right is just that-scary talk. People should travel a little and see instead of taking the FOX News view of the world. Europe is not scary at all, believe it or not. If some Americans realized how well people live in most parts of the western world, there would be real revolt here, but for different reasons.

This is some ACTUAL, non partisan, information on what the ACA does, and does not do. Some might find it useful. :)

http-//www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm.webloc

If I believed the scary voice guys, and the bought and paid for shills that dominate the TV and some of the news, I wouldn't want the ACA either. But I don't believe them and I'm smart enough to put in a lot of time and effort learning the facts.

If you are against this stuff, try this: Call around and try to get insurance, and tell them you are a 55 year old man. Fairly healthy but you used to smoke and you've had some minor high blood pressure. Your wife is good, but did have a benign lump removed from her breast last year. Tell us how that goes.

And when they are done "cherry picking" how far above 37th do we rise? To 25th? 20th? 10th? Why should we be best in very category of life all the time? The US has the most resources, by far the most wealth, and certainly many of the best and brightest minds. Why should we even be arguing over this stuff?

John
 
Last edited:
Health Care should be handled in the private sector, anything the government gets involved in is eventually mismanaged, look at public education and, of course, the healthcare system.

Isn't one problem with healthcare the fact that medicare will only pay a portion of what it actually costs one to provide services, this leaves the provider having to make up the cost somewhere else.

To say that our healthcare system is inferior than other countries isn't completely honest. America provides the most advanced medical care in the world, weather you can pay or not. Sure the financial side of the system is a mess but the actual medical care is second to none, and is not reserved solely for the rich. I have taken care of many patients who have had no way to pay their bills, a homeless drug addict receives the same care as a wealthy buisnessman, I witness this first hand almost daily. No one is turned away from the emergency room because they can not pay their bill.

Some groups, over the years, have done a good job of brainwashing the general public into believeing that Americas ills are the sole result of greedy fatcats on Wallstreet. Look into the cause of the housing collapse, it was caused by the government forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't make the payments. This was done under the name of affordable housing, the idea that every American has a "right" to home ownership.

The government is the problem, fix it rather than expecting it to take care of every aspect of our lives. Fix the government and our economy and society will follow.
 
Well said. Some parts of the WHO report the other side likes to ignore like the fact that the USA leads the world in survival rate on 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. If ones family members biopsy comes back the other way thats the system I want to be a part of.
Someone can probably cut you a pretty good deal on a well worn parachute but is that the one you really want. You can tout all the other health care systems around the world you want but there is a reason a Saudi prince brings his wife half way around the world to Phoenix for medical treatment. jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
Last edited:
jefft said:
Well said. Some parts of the WHO report the other side likes to ignore like the fact that the USA leads the world in survival rate on 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. If ones family members biopsy comes back the other way thats the system I want to be a part of.
Someone can probably cut you a pretty good deal on a well worn parachute but is that the one you really want. jefft

Posted via Mobile
Click to expand...

Do you a fat lot of good if you can't pay for it.


John
 
How about pointing out a country with successful "private sector" healthcare, one with good results.

Emergency room treatment is not healthcare, and if it's serious and you can't pay, you will be bankrupted, just like that.

But, on the other hand, Somolia functions just fine without a government, so maybe you're right.

John
 
sherwin said:
Health Care should be handled in the private sector, anything the government gets involved in is eventually mismanaged, look at public education and, of course, the healthcare system.

Isn't one problem with healthcare the fact that medicare will only pay a portion of what it actually costs one to provide services, this leaves the provider having to make up the cost somewhere else.

To say that our healthcare system is inferior than other countries isn't completely honest. America provides the most advanced medical care in the world, weather you can pay or not. Sure the financial side of the system is a mess but the actual medical care is second to none, and is not reserved solely for the rich. I have taken care of many patients who have had no way to pay their bills, a homeless drug addict receives the same care as a wealthy buisnessman, I witness this first hand almost daily. No one is turned away from the emergency room because they can not pay their bill.

Some groups, over the years, have done a good job of brainwashing the general public into believeing that Americas ills are the sole result of greedy fatcats on Wallstreet. Look into the cause of the housing collapse, it was caused by the government forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't make the payments. This was done under the name of affordable housing, the idea that every American has a "right" to home ownership.

The government is the problem, fix it rather than expecting it to take care of every aspect of our lives. Fix the government and our economy and society will follow.
Click to expand...

On the topic of "cherry picking" the data, the claim that the US has the highest cancer survival rates has also been challenged. http://newswithnumbers.com/2009/09/28/cancer-survival/ is an article that criticizes the methodolgy behind that claim. Among other things that put this claim in question, as critics note, is the fact that "the United States has the lowest longevity of the industrialized nations" It also notes a wide variance of survivability in the US based on region and ethnicity.

The assertion that "Health Care should be handled in the private sector, anything the government gets involved in is eventually mismanaged" is simply a statement of opinion, not fact. The assertion that the "housing collapse, it was caused by the government forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't make the payments" is quite simply flat wrong and ignores the well-documented abuses of the financial sector (a.k.a. "the bubble machine"). Which, BTW is now blowing up a derivitives market bubble that it will surely pop.

As I opined earlier, the line on this issue is drawn betweeen those who religiously cling to the notion that "for profit" a.k.a. "free market" solutions are always best and those who do not.

Clearly there are those among us on both sides of that line.

My thanks to you all for sharing your perspectives.
 
Won't do you much good if you wind up dead either cause you had to settle for second best.
jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
Given a choice I'll take alive and bankrupt rather than dead with some money in the bank.
jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
Any system that includes more than 1 person is going to be flawed. Australia has a reasonable government and private health system. Its really question of balance between both. There will always be people who for whatever reason cant or wont get private cover, and plenty with the wrong cover. You might go bankrupt saving your wife, what happens when 6 months later your kid gets some shit disease? You need some kind of safety net. Balance is the key
One thing that always amazed me is ambulance cover. Should be compulsory for anyone who drives on the road!
Posted via Mobile
 
Lots of good arguments for both sides. Obviously I am more of a private sector kind of guy. Anyway this has been an interesting thread and I've rambled more than I have in other posts. Hopefully we will come to a solution but it may take a generation, no easy answers.

Finally, this thread isn't as fun as the ones we have regarding Harley Riders :laugh:
 
Can anyone name a successful andefficient government program in the United States?

That's the biggest gripe I have with the whole thing. As I mentioned earlier, my father in law was at MD Anderson in Houston from May, until he died in early November. He received Whole blood, platelettes, a bone marrow transplant, and experimental stem cell therapy. He died. Billionare Fredrick's wife recieved similar treatment, over the same time period. Fred spent 1.6 million dollars out of his pocket. Chuck's was "paid" by the state of Texas, as he was 53, self-employed, uninsured, and in tax trouble when he was diagnosed. 1.3 million was the tab for trying to save him. I am conflicted. I feel like he was given the best the system had to offer, and somehow, me and my fellow Texans are paying for it, but I certainly would not have been satisfied if they would have told him "tough luck" in Dallas when he first fell ill.
I currently have nothing but Aflac, to try and float everything in the event something happens to me, but that's unrealistic without some form of major medical coverage.
Harley riders are mostly snobby bitches! There, I changed the subject!
 
"Can anyone name a successful andefficient government program in the United States?"
Yeah believe it or not it's the Post Office. In spite of congress stealing all the money with the damn pre-fund retirement scheme. That has us paying in retirement for people who aren't born yet. Which prevented us from modernizing the fleet and a bazillion other things. We are still consistently the cheapest and best Post Office in the world. We are also the largest post office by far. To be fair we are quasi government with a layer of protection from some of the worst congressional meddling.

Keep in mind that the reason insurance and private pay is so expensive is because the government seriously underpays for medicare and the healthcare providers have to make up the difference somewhere. If private insurance disappears that fig leaf will be gone the entire system will be "third world" due to lack of funds. IF we have "universal care" you still need to have the patient cover at least part of the cost of services provided so they have an incentive to use only a rational amount of service. It's a slippery slope but I don't feel I should have to pay the burden of some slob who doesn't do ANYTHING to maintain their own health. Why should I cover the services some 300 pound cigarette smoker is going to "need"?
 
I had to drop mine it was costing me $378.00 A MONTH AND HAD A $5000 DED.the cost is 3 times that for famly.and that with myemp.paying 1/2.
 
Why should you have to pay for the 300 pound cigarette smoker? Because thats what the man wants regardless what 3 out of 4 Americans wanted. The WHO report also had the USA ranked as #1 in responsiveness but you won't here some mention that.
jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
I'm a private enterprise kind of person. Having said that, I see some serious flaws in our 'health care' system.

My daughter has asthma. That means she has to stay on a 'maintenance inhaler' and keep a rescue with her. A 60 dose 100/50 ADVAIR inhaler is $202.00 here in the States. The exact same inhaler in Canada is about $60-$70. But it is not legal for me to buy her inhalers from Canada.

AFAIK medical stuff is the ONLY thing that is forbidden to be sold across the border. If I go to Canada, I can buy a new car and bring it back with no issues except some paperwork. That is called price fixing.

I currently do not have medical insurance for either of us, I pay out of pocket. I learned quickly that there is a HUGE discount for 'self pay'. What's up with that? Here's how it works: if a doc takes BCBS, they bill such and such an amount for a given service. BCBS will pay a 'reasonable and customary' amount for that visit, which is WAY less than the bill shows. So the patient gets dinged for the difference.

But it does not stop there. BCBS pays a discounted amount for bulk billing; at the end of the month, the doc submits a total to BCBS, who then cut him/her/it a check BUT there is a discount (about 10%) taken off of that. So if the doc's total monthly billing for 'reasonable and customary' is $10k, BCBS sends him/her/it a check for $9k.

What this means is that the 'co pays' and 'deductibles' are all smoke and mirror bullshit to obscure what the insurance company REALLY pays and shove a higher part of the cost onto the patient. When all is said and done, your 20% or whatever becomes closer to 50% or even higher.

It's not like BCBS doesn't crow about it a bit. Last year, BCBS of SC was sitting on $1.7 billion (yes, that's billion with a B) in 'reserves'. The average CEO of the company (seems there are a few of them) received a $100,000.00 pay RAISE. Yes, I said RAISE.

Those fuckers declared that my daughter's 'eligibility' ended on April 1, 2011. I doscovered this in June when I went to renew her prescription for ADVAIR. (OBTW, my co pay was $30, if you remember the Canadian amount above I was actually paying close to 50% out of pocket.) I put an IMMENSE amount of time into phone calls, etc to no avail and I finally wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. When they printed it, two days later I received a phone call on my personal cell (which I had never put on my application, wonder how they got the number) from a VP. I let her have it, both barrels. She finally got it straightened out.

My take away from that was the 'rules' are intentionally confusing, arbitrary and conflicting to the point where the average person will finally throw their hands up and pay the thing out of pocket along with their premiums, thus adding to BCBS' 'reserves'.

OBTW: BCBS is a non profit (allegedly). They just call it 'reserves' and tap into it for CEO compensation. I personally don't give a flying fuck how big a Lear they want, if they try to weasel out of paying my kid's medical costs there will be big trouble.

I am no big fan of government interference in anything but if it will curb that kind of abuse I might be persuaded to change my mind.

gggGary:

'It's a slippery slope but I don't feel I should have to pay the burden of some slob who doesn't do ANYTHING to maintain their own health. Why should I cover the services some 300 pound cigarette smoker is going to "need"?'

The problem with this? The 300 pound smoker slob is saying, 'Why should I pay to help patch that motorcycle rider back together after a crash?' Yes, it's a VERY slippery slope. And there is no reason the insurance companies would not try to force compliance with their guidelines in order to maximize their profits. [tinfoil hat] I guaran-damn-tee you they are who is really behind the NYC trans fats and Big Gulp bans. [/tinfoil hat]
 
"Can anyone name a successful andefficient government program in the United States?"
Click to expand...

Had polio, smallpox or cholera lately? FDA
Listen to the radio/watch TV? FCC
Take medicine for some condition? Drive on the interstate? Had airplanes fall on you? Drink water? Breathe clean air? Had salmonella or other food poisoning?
Watch or listen to a weather report?
Use any electronic devices? Most of the tech came from the space program. Satellites for pretty much ALL communications, TV, telephone, internet, security/military.

Use the internet? Al Gore aside, brought to you by your federal government (ARPANET)

GI Bill, student loans, the military, fire and police protection.

Social Security, Medicare, which work quite well in spite of the opinions of those who would have you believe otherwise-ask your grandma.

Voting rights, civil rights. And on and on.

C'mon, really? really?

John
 
hooktool said:
Had polio, smallpox or cholera lately? FDA Budget item, Regulatory and reactionary not proactively fighting diseases. They dictate what industry can or cannot bring to the public.

Listen to the radio/watch TV? FCC Regulatory. They dictate what industry can or cannot bring to the public.

Take medicine for some condition? Regulatory. They dictate what industry can or cannot bring to the public.
Drive on the interstate? Regulatory Driven on a really awesome brand new road lately that does not have tolls?
Had airplanes fall on you? Regulatory-public service- budget item
Drink water? Regulatory Breathe clean air? Regulatory Had salmonella or other food poisoning? Regulatory
Watch or listen to a weather report? Public Service- not self sustaining-budget item

Use any electronic devices? Most of the tech came from the space program. Satellites for pretty much ALL communications, TV, telephone, internet, security/military.
Built and manged by private companies. Contact Boeing or Raytheon for satellite needs.

Use the internet? Al Gore aside, brought to you by your federal government (ARPANET)
Implemented by private corporations for public use. MARS phones were real nice.

GI Bill, (budget item) student loans,(budget item-broken system with no realistic expectation of an actual benefit) the military, (An actual Constitutional function) fire and police protection.( Duties of Cities, Counties)

Social Security, (broke, budget item) Medicare (broke, budget item) , which work quite well in spite of the opinions of those who would have you believe otherwise-ask your grandma.( I watch people eat cream of wheat twice a day to afford prescription co-pays. It ain't all that, and it ain't shit wtihout a supplement)

Voting rights, civil rights. And on and on (These are not "programs" These are rights)

C'mon, really? really?

John
Click to expand...



Answer the whole question. It's no secret that the US government is the largest EMPLOYER in the country. Everyone knows they have thier fingers in everything, but that does not make them successful. Neither does consuming more and more money every year.
As Gary pointed out, the Post Office is the only self-sustaining operation in the United States Government.
There are duties "assumed" by the government, and then there are "responsibilities" of the government. A big wide blurry line these days.

I have a cousin that quit here social services job after they were directed to tell "clients" about other government "programs" they could qualify for if thier circumstances changed. Encouraging people to get fired so they can go to college on my money? Encouraging single mothers on public assistance to have another bastard baby for us to feed so she can "make minimums" for a HUD loan?:wtf: Indeed!

Our government is bloated, ineficcient, and morally bankrupt. I cannot abide feeding anything else into it!:banghead:
 

Similar threads

bosco659
World stats
Replies
0
Views
91
bosco659
bosco659
Downeaster
It's like God is telling me I shouldn't have chickens.
Replies
9
Views
714
Mailman
Mailman
DogBunny
small victories -- won a race on Saturday
Replies
15
Views
259
Kevin Werner
Kevin Werner
Mailman
Tank battle movies….and the true stories that inspired them
Replies
6
Views
741
Mikey
Mikey
YamadudeXS650C
What if your medical treatment was possibly killing you, and nobody told you?
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
YamadudeXS650C
YamadudeXS650C
Back
Top