Why do you hate freedom?Originally Posted by GGT
Its the internet age - the idea that you can't purchase something across state lines is asinine.
Why do you hate freedom?
Its the internet age - the idea that you can't purchase something across state lines is asinine.
Troll
Riiight, Amazon sells pretty much everything, why not health insurance, too?Its the internet age - the idea that you can't purchase something across state lines is asinine.The Internet Age lets you browse and shop for goods and services, but the product and delivery service will be local, based on local/state prices. I can't buy a refrigerator from Sears on-line and have it delivered to PA at Texas prices. Even auto insurance rates are based on Zip Code, not just the cheapest state rates.
You're confusing the insurance product with the providers, institutions, and others delivering the services -- the real hands-on care for real peoples' health or illness -- that come with different price/cost structures. It was designed that way by the Insurance Industry, Insurance Commissioners, and state legislators....with support from physicians and hospitals.
You're (unintentionally) making a pretty good case for National Health Insurance, with actuarial pools including all 50 states, regardless of local or regional COL, and co-mingling all risk groups regardless of age or health status. Sounds like Medicare for All, huh. What were you saying about Freeeeedom??
No comment on the Upton bill passing in the house? It's called the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013. What a farce.
It's a shame Republican politicians didn't display this level of concern or outrage for the 40-50 million uninsured people, or those forced into medical bankruptcy....because they had junk policies. Too bad they didn't spend time reading the PPACA, encourage their State Insurance Commissioners to work with carriers to grandfather non-compliant policies, or educate their constituents.
No, much easier and expedient to run to the media with angry letters from the tiny number of people, in the small individual market, who want to keep their $50/month policy (that doesn't cover spit). The media jumps on the anecdotal bandwagon, printing emotional stories without fully researching the facts. And Democrats who voted for the bill should hang their heads in shame, for making such a blatant political decision based on their own re-election.
What a clusterfuck.
I think you will find, the reason most do not concern themselves with the politics/government systems here in the states is because of two things.
1) Everyone is told they are stupid, it is too complex so we won't explain if we feel like it we will do so in a manner that is purposely misleading yet good sounding, but don't worry we are the good guys we'll handle it for you, here is your binary choice, yes or no.
2) That group of people accept fact one and abide by it, which ever choice they pick.
The real problem with the health care here is that basically it is too lawyered up and the pharmaceutical industry is too intent on drugging everyone up with stuff they really don't need. Pretty sure 90% of the cost that insurance conjurers up is related to those two things more than the actual services and products. Also fairly sure between lawyers and insurance they have a nice con game going here where both parties basically take money from people who really can not afford it to offer them something they really don't need while in actuality giving nothing in return. That is not to say there arn't some iffy medical practices out there either but over all the greater greed blame rests in those two camps more than the practices.
There was an era when regular health check ups was not a mantra/concept or practice, most people know when they are sick and when they are not, catching something developing in the early stages and treating it, maybe that saves lives or makes lives better, but it should never be a mandatory thing. The other issue is thanks to the internet, a lot of self doctoring can and does happen so, you really only need medical stuff for things you can not get over the counter or self medicate/treat, which is far more cost effective than what is in place now.
So the only thing this will change for me is when the penalty is so high that it is cheaper to get insurance, than not have any. A lot of people are probably in my camp, if we get sick, suffer and then die due to sickness or related sicknesses, too bad, that's life and that is all there is to it; if some ask for help then that's their prerogative, most of us do not, because we know the answer, you don't care so don't claim/act like you do and more importantly your boat is probably not strong enough to take the burden anyway. If you are a humanist just take care of your own, if you are the vindictive why are you not conforming to this stupidity that I am in as well-ist, don't worry we'll all going to the same place anyway (just a matter of where when and how) and your choice/situation has nothing to do with mine.
So it is hard to be out raged at anything they do or claim to have done. It is nothing more than an annoyance that was not asked for. If they really wanted to help, they would have done the following.
Abolish the insurance health industry, disband private health care entirely. Take a controlling stake in pharmaceuticals (if that means taking them off the stock market then do so) this assumes that governance of any kind can actually do things in an efficient fair and non biased or manipulable way. Take apart the laws that encourage rampant suing culture we have over this particular area. Subsidize the difficult or genuinely expensive treatments and just raise the overall tax rate rather than have it itemized on the bill as specifically $X as a penalty. Actually get rid of overly bureaucratic mechanisms in services, some are useful but a lot are stupid. Treat people first ask questions later policy, sure some would abuse but would it really matter in the long run? The regular trouble makers would be marked and specially dealt with anyway.
Good example is filling out that health questionnaire, then answering the same questions verbally during your appointment not once, not always twice but sometimes three further times, have it all tapped into a computer record that depending on the waivers or not that you signed or did not will regardless be shared with dozens of companies that have nothing really to do with you at this point but will mess with your pricing data for services later based off responses to questions you did know but don't know how they were filled out or what other comments were said that you were not told about. This system here is terrible in that particular aspect as is all the behind scenes non sense between the various companies and their agreements for the services you invoke or do not depending on what tests you need/use outside of the facility.
Yes OK some people lie when answering questions hence the double or quadruple cross examination in the surgery but frankly. It's all stupid. Either you have money or you don't either you are sick or you are not, either you intend to be bad and sue them for not being perfect or not. Credit checks should not be part of that or criminal if they do that as well, seems like one implies the other given how much they focus on it, the system has basically forgotten its fundamental purpose so, it needs a lot of fixing, which isn't going to happen any time soon as too many people are getting rich off it that won't want to see it better because the money is more important than what they actually do.
Just the usual fear overload so everyone takes the crap bad option as the 'only' good option. The whole thing needs overhauling and retooling. Money should not be the main factor in healthcare. Healthcare should just exist, it should be city tax if anything, not a federal one. Governments come and go, but cities live far longer.
Why do you hate freedom? Do you know people come from around the world to take part in America's health care industry? Did you know our private medical research is on the bleeding edge of new discoveries? Did you know that in countries with socialized medicine dogs can get treated faster for cancer than humans?
I think this would just cause Detroit to become even more of a ghost town.
I call bullshit. Maybe in very few countries, but most countries do just fine.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Waiting times are pretty much a guaranteed symptom of any government-run healthcare system. For anyone who thinks there's a way around that, do you also think there would be no problems if the government set prices on other products?
Hope is the denial of reality
for cancer wait times are pretty much guaranteed regardless of the system unless you're paying with straight cash. Saw that with my dad and then mom.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm talking about for any remotely complicated procedure. That also includes seeing a specialist of any kind.
P.S. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/con...spc-027766.pdf Start on page 8.
Hope is the denial of reality
The only "mandatory" health screening is for children entering public school. Mostly to make sure they're vaccinated, but also to look for things that can impede learning or normal growth (vision/hearing, nutritional deficits, scoliosis, etc.)
And that self-doctoring approach isn't always so cost effective when it masks a disease or delays professional evaluation -- like peptic ulcers, chronic indigestion, heartburn -- and all the OTC antacids and acid blockers that don't work on H. pylori bacteria or esophageal reflux disease. Plus, that's part of the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry getting us to buy their stuff (and I agree with you about their oversized influence and power in our healthcare.)
That "penalty" is an accident or trauma that can leave you with outrageous hospital and physician bills. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt you could never pay, forcing you to sell your house and tangible assets, then filing medical bankruptcy. Plus attorney's fees.So the only thing this will change for me is when the penalty is so high that it is cheaper to get insurance, than not have any.
That's pretty fatalistic, and doesn't recognize that reality means broken bones, severe bleeding, heart attacks, GSWs, 3rd degree burns -- things that aren't sickness/illness but emergencies that can be treated and save lives. What's to be done about that? Tatto Do Not Resuscitate on your chest? Wear a medical bracelet saying In the event of an emergency, Do Not take me to the hospital? How would that play out in our reality of sports injuries, car crashes, construction accidents, building fires, etc.?A lot of people are probably in my camp, if we get sick, suffer and then die due to sickness or related sicknesses, too bad, that's life and that is all there is to it; if some ask for help then that's their prerogative, most of us do not, because we know the answer, you don't care so don't claim/act like you do and more importantly your boat is probably not strong enough to take the burden anyway. If you are a humanist just take care of your own, if you are the vindictive why are you not conforming to this stupidity that I am in as well-ist, don't worry we'll all going to the same place anyway (just a matter of where when and how) and your choice/situation has nothing to do with mine.
I agree with those statements, but not the surrounding text or your conclusions.the system has basically forgotten its fundamental purpose so, it needs a lot of fixing, which isn't going to happen any time soon as too many people are getting rich off it that won't want to see it better because the money is more important than what they actually do.
The whole thing needs overhauling and retooling. Money should not be the main factor in healthcare.
And people dying because they can't afford healthcare is a guaranteed symptom of any free-market-run healthcare system. And even in a completely capitalist system, you'll have waiting times anyway because overcapacity is expensive and inefficient, but that's besides the point. There are downsides to both the extremes, which is why you need to find a middle ground. BTW, I'd argue your (old) system is more socialized than ours, because you have tonnes of people on Medicare (= government run healthcare), where as we have none. And when you don't have insurance, get helped in emergency rooms anyway, and can't pay your bills, which are in effect paid by others, that's socialist too. Which is why I find the whole 'free market' and 'anti socialism' arguments a bit funny, because you don't have a free market system to begin with. And if you would, most people would hate it. Now I don't know if Obamacare is the right solution - it's definitely got a lot of downsides as well, and the implementation is embarassing - but the arguments used against it (and probably in favor of it, too) are kinda.. disconnected.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Not really on-topic, but I have decided to change insurers. I'm going to get the same package as Ronald, who's paying only €10 a month more and has much better coverage. Deductable for care covered by basic is €360 a year and the monthly premium is €120 p.p.
Congratulations America
Well I can't speak for every country but I can speak for our closest neighbor.
http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca...are-for-humans
Day doesn't mind reiterating the comparison today, even if he is head of the CMA. "This is a country in which pets, with respect to the ability to purchase private health insurance, have more rights than their owners do," he told Maclean's. "People can and do spend money on their pets - but if it's their own body, they have to join a lineup and wait for that care unless they leave home and go to another province or country." The vet community doesn't argue. "The reason animals have faster and better care is that vet care is a private enterprise," says Dr. Bernhard Pukay, CEO and senior partner of the state-of-the-art Alta Vista Animal Hospital in Ottawa. "And people are prepared to pay." As for himself, Pukay recently needed an MRI; faced with a six-month wait, minimum, in Ontario for the diagnostic, he skipped over to Quebec - along with B.C., one of two provinces where loopholes permit some private health care procedures - and had one done right away, for $1,000. "Should we try to make the human system closer to the veterinary system?" he asks. "Which is broken? I think the veterinary system works just fine."
Which news source were you reading that linked you to The Canadian Encyclopedia / The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada, that reprinted a Maclean's article from 2008, Lewk?
You're seriously comparing human medicine with veterinary medicine, and the solution to our human healthcare problems is to make it private enterprise like vet care....for "people prepared to pay"....or those "privileged enough to pay"? Wow, that's some crazy conflation there. Of course animals don't have wait times for 'specialists' like people do, because it's a small group who can fork out $14,000 cash for chemo, or $3,000 for ligament surgery for their dogs. And yeah, people who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a horse can also afford $2,000 for a horse MRI.
Animals with money to spend, eh. Not only that, but you totally ignored one big reason given for Canada's access problems is related to their funding process of fixed annual budgets and block grants. And that "Day used the pet paradigm to defend the notion of a Canadian parallel private system for humans - the same kind that exists in countries like Japan, Germany and Switzerland, all of which retain universal health care but don't have wait-times troubles. "When you have a parallel private system, it helps the public system," Day said then, during a television appearance. "This has given patients across the country the same rights of access that your pets have."If a person had money? "If a person had money, they could go to Buffalo or New York and if they know you are coming, you could go get your consultation, get your MRI the same afternoon and your surgery the next day. As long as you can afford it, the turnaround time might be a week."
Kind of like animals? "Yes," says Michael.
The fact that I listed is indisputable. Dogs don't have to wait in lines to get cancer treated, humans do.
yes, yes they do. and they also commonly have to travel across several states to get the treatment. I went through this with my mom's german shepard. 3 months before the doctor more than 500 miles away was available to operate. By the time we got the operation done he was moved around on a flat cart because of the pressure on his spine. Animal veterinarians become highly specialized when it comes to small and medium house pets, to the point where there are only a handful per region. When my sister's greyhound got cancer, the only option she was presented with was putting the dog down, and she is a bloody vet tech.
You might have gotten away with your bullshit if you claimed a more common livestock or farm veterinarian discipline didn't have waits for cancer, but thats only because those animals are just as likely to be put down as they are to be treated.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Do you live in Canada?
Are you suggesting Canada has a better private enterprise than America when it comes to pet care, or are you showing that you're unable to use critical thinking when reading the last link you posted?
What happened to the world revolving around 'Merica!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Dogs whose people have money don't wait in line for vet care. People with money don't wait in line for medical care. What's your point?
None of which takes into account that the vast majority of pets with cancer are euthanised before the treatment starts for real. That tends to thin out the competition for empty slots.
Congratulations America
Do you live in La La Land?
Now, why do you think children diagnosed with Leukemia or Lymphoma today have a 90% survival rate, compared to a 6% survival rate in the 60's? Fewer kids are diagnosed with Leukemia or Lymphomas? Those kids just happen to have rich parents? There are more rich parents?
There are less doctors per capita in Canada then in America. I'm willing to bet the reverse is true for vets. The reasoning on why should be quite obvious.
as of 2007, in Canada there were 1374 pets per vet, in America there are 3072 pets per vet (this only includes small pets [cats and dogs]).
in 2008, in Canada there were 470 people per doctor, and in America 390 per doctor
of note, before you say something else stupid, America has 12 times the pet population of Canada. You have thus far displayed a complete lack on understanding concerning the information in the last link you've posted. The fact that you're trying to use top tier owner funded pet operations to attack Canada's health program is simply
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Ummm your numbers support my point.as of 2007, in Canada there were 1374 pets per vet, in America there are 3072 pets per vet (this only includes small pets [cats and dogs]).
in 2008, in Canada there were 470 people per doctor, and in America 390 per doctor
of note, before you say something else stupid, America has 12 times the pet population of Canada. You have thus far displayed a complete lack on understanding concerning the information in the last link you've posted. The fact that you're trying to use top tier owner funded pet operations to attack Canada's health program is simply
see, i even warned you about saying something stupid
absolutely no critical thinking or attempt to connect the dots in the proper way
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm really curious where you're going with this...see, i even warned you about saying something stupid
absolutely no critical thinking or attempt to connect the dots in the proper way
Animals/pets in affluent households receive better medical attention than millions of people. That's true in every country, even dirt poor developing nations, so long as there are wealthy people who can afford to spend money that way. <Thoroughbred horses have fancy stables, personal groomers and trainers, air-conditioned travel trailers, and top notch vets. Hell, even the Anhieser-Busch clydesdales are treated better than millions of people.>
So what's your point? Do you want to see people have the same care as privileged animals....or do you want to treat under-privileged people like mangy stray dogs?
Ok time to catch up, maybe, cover both Lewk and GGT.
No don't be silly.
Yes, certainly.
Debatable. It's also been very shitty too, lot of medical advise has been turn on it's head in last 20-30 years, for the second time, back to how it was.
Nice for the mutts I guess. How is that relevant? What point are you trying to make, we should all turn into poodle and yip yap to your tune?
Probably, a lot of US cities do not make much practical sense to be where they are as they are. Am sure in time it will happen anyway people are gravitating to the megalopolises out there so we will all be living in New York or LA by 2100, 90% of America maybe and maybe a couple of other big cities.I think this would just cause Detroit to become even more of a ghost town.
The children thing happening at schools if that is what you meant is OK by me.
You need to travel to other countries in the world and have a look at the local populations there. They are healthy without all this shit, even our cavemen ancestors were healthier.
99% of the crap we buy for medicine here has side effects some serious, we are over medicated and we tend to take medication to treat the side effects of other medication. We also tend to turn to pills far quicker than we should, have a headache, take an aspirin, feeling down take an aspirin... pretty soon you are always takening an aspirin, no one is meant to take it all the time, while this one does not have huge side effects it CAN when it starts coming into contact with other chemicals that are not medicinal in nature or medication. Even the doctors don't know the full flow chart tree of interaction and relationships that equate to even worse side effects.
We also have the issue here of, due to the huge abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry that our human systems are flooded with not only medicine for livestock that does not get broken down, but also all the growth hormones, all the pesticides which they use on the farm produce, we also have huge issues with sanitation of the livestock in the first place. The net result is all the cancers, and growth abnormalities including things like massive rise autism and the unrelated ADHD if we actually employed some effort and honesty would point back to these things, I am fairly sure.
While its not totally on topic, it has a large impact and I am at a loss as to how other to explain why other nations that are not so addicted to medication are actually healthier without pointing to these key differences. You might argue they just don't have the data available or what ever but when you walk around in their streets you turn around and think shit, everyone looks pretty healthy and active around here and they don't have the crap we call fast food either.
The system should not be this way and the fact we have lawyers involved at this stage is ridiculous, they add nothing to our quality of treatment only excessive billing as you mentioned and broken bones can be self treated if need be, some people opt to do this anyway, its not so hard as you think. I personally find it distasteful that to even call an ambulance in certain areas out, that is an automatic $500 or more. I guess most of that is to cover their speeding tickets lol.
You know its wrong when you know it would be cheaper to call the cops, threaten em enough and have them shoot you dead than it would be to actually call the medical services and get insurance/healthcare involved. At least you'd be out of your misery a lot quicker. Heh.
GSWs?That's pretty fatalistic, and doesn't recognize that reality means broken bones, severe bleeding, heart attacks, GSWs, 3rd degree burns -- things that aren't sickness/illness but emergencies that can be treated and save lives. What's to be done about that? Tatto Do Not Resuscitate on your chest? Wear a medical bracelet saying In the event of an emergency, Do Not take me to the hospital? How would that play out in our reality of sports injuries, car crashes, construction accidents, building fires, etc.?
The tattoo thing was me just having some fun.
I think I said to the end of the post or somewhere else or certainly intend to say if I did not get around to it.
Simple steps:
1. Get rid of the lawyers involvement completely if possible.
2. Get rid of medical insurance its bullshit anyway, every practice hates dealing with those companies and they have built in admin fees of 30% to 60% just because lawyers and insurance really do cost that much and give so little back in return. (Try paying cash some time and see the difference in the bill amount, its jaw dropping). Plus anyone who has dealt with lawyers already knows they want their money upfront but good luck getting your money upfront from them if you are in a profession other than a lawyer, I guess not all of them are this way but most seem to be this way when it comes to regular services/billing.
3. Put the costs of running hospitals for the general public and the ambulance services under property taxes or a similar levy like most places do for their police and fire departments.
If your city does not have the facilities to cover more unique situations like cancer or certain diseases that are rare they should be referred to bigger cities by the doctors to those doctors who can actually do something about those things. Would need to set up some sort of care swap system, but it does not have to be a big deal.
I could tell.
@ None:
GSW = gun shot wound
Childhood Leukemia/Lymphoma data was to remind Lewk that medical advancements don't follow the Capitalism model he idolizes, but the SSSocialism model of government/tax-funded things he usually derides. Pediatric medicine, other specialties and sub-specialties "benefit" just like vet medicine....but only after the expensive R & D has been done.
Medical tattoos aren't a far-fetched idea. Neither are epidermal data implants, like our pets have already.
Insurance and Legislation have ceased to be legitimate "middlemen", or administrators of a Public Good, and become Industries unto themselves, based purely on profits. You're right about the different prices charged to the group-insured vs self-insured vs uninsured vs cash payers. It is jaw dropping....but that's the problem.
<Anecdote/Example: my older sister's platinum employer-subsidized policy reimbursed $25,000 worth of services for a routine bunionectomy. Orthopedic surgeon, anesthesiologist, podiatrist, physical therapists, durable medical (foot cast and braces, wheel chair, knee trike, nocturnal devices) plus all medications and weeks of PT. Her out-of-pocket costs were under $1,000. (Plus, she was paid full salary during her 30 days off work, recovering/rehabilitating.)
Other sister's Catastrophic self-employed/self-insured policy didn't cover one damn thing, since bunionectomies are outpatient procedures. The surgeon/hospital "negotiated" a fee of $9,000, cash OOP. No PT, no meds, no devices. And she lost wages during her time off work recovering/rehabilitating.
Decades of paid premiums that added up to MORE than what older sister had taken from her paycheck. So yeah, the whole system was rigged in favor of large employers, group policies, an corporate tax breaks...instead of real costs, real people, real needs.
That said, I don't want to get rid of private insurance altogether. They have spent generations fine-tuning actuarial science and risk pool analysis. And I wouldn't want to eliminate lawyers entirely, either. They're often the impetus behind Quality of Care standards, protecting patients from unscrupulous physicians that can't be monitored by the AMA or other agencies. They ought to work together, though, instead of taking adversarial positions...based on billable hours or company profits. We're talking about people's lives here.
I'm excited about getting a new health insurance policy on the individual market that isn't crap/junk. My state hasn't done much to assist my search, and I don't even expect a tax subsidy!
I'm glad for the Patient Protection parts of the law that mean I can no longer be denied coverage for my breasts and uterus as "pre-existing conditions", or charged higher premiums for being born female. That's a big weight lifted from real life worries. I won't have to hold my breath or "hope" against a diagnosis of breast cancer, or be dragged into medical bankruptcy, either.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
