Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the state of health of U.S. citizens today?
Is it better? NO. In fact, our collective health is WORSE.
Total and complete failure. That is costing us more.
People want to talk about coverage and rates and plans ... what about the HEALTH of the people on those plans? If health has improved the it is a success. If not, it doesn't matter HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COVERED, it is a complete and utter failure.
What is the state of health of U.S. citizens today?
Is it better? NO. In fact, our collective health is WORSE.
Total and complete failure. That is costing us more.
People want to talk about coverage and rates and plans ... what about the HEALTH of the people on those plans? If health has improved the it is a success. If not, it doesn't matter HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COVERED, it is a complete and utter failure.
That was the case prior to ObamaCare though. The healthcare situation in America hasn't changed but we only had what three years of ObamaCare for a true case study.
I heard today that five of the states only have one insurer left that people can buy from. Opening the borders would help. My insurance premium is increasing more that 300 dollars in January. Every year since AZZhatobummer care was started I have less coverage and a higher premium.
One thing I don't get is this. I have been informed of what my new premium is. So, they know what the new rates are, but won't release them until the 15 of Oct. so I can compare. Then, I can't change anything til the first of Nov. and I have a few weeks to do so. This whole act puts everyone on the same schedule. I'd like to do away with that.
^^^ when you start using language like that you lose credibility- calling people names and such .
Anyway the ACA saved my life . Period . I am uninsurable the old way die to a chronic illness . Only if my husbands job carried it which they rarely did and even then going to the specialists were still almost impossible. I now go to the Dr. constantly because I could not afford to to go the Dr for so long that ultiple things need to be fixed or managed - where it's gone on too long .
Some people don't realize it was up to each state to partake or not partake of the ACA or somewhere in the middle . Washington took the whole thing thank goodness. Now my State of origin did not - siml because it was pres Obama's plan . Had the same plan been crafted by a republican I think thins would have been different .
Regardless I plugged several of my addresses in the ACA website from my times in OK and Tx and I could not move back of I wanted . Strange that your premium would be SKY HIGH in Ok and extraordinarily explosively high in Tx with the exact same income you are making in Washington state .... those people there need services the most
Then of course you have all these angry greedy ins CEO's now who cannot get that new boat or 4th house somewhere. There's profit and there is greed . That though is for another thread .
The best insurance I EVER had was the 4 years I spent in my husbands country of the Netherlands . It was a single payer system and people didn't go bankrupt due to catastrophic illness and I got alot of work done there they had to redo alot of things I could only have the US "patch up" under the old system.
Last edited by DutchessCottonPuff; 10-11-2016 at 07:49 AM..
Does no one remember how difficult it was to get anything through Congress? does no one remember that the Republicans fought against it tooth and nail, and that they still want to repeal it completely?
Of course it needs to be fixed, but as long as health care in the USA is run by Big Pharmaceutical there is little likelihood that much will change. And as along at the Republicans resist any possibility of health care for those who are not fairly well off, there is little likelihood that this will change. And then there is the fact that there are simply not enough doctors in the country to take care of all the people.
I have good health care with medicare and a terrific supplemental system. Recently I got Anaplasmosis(a very nasty life threatening tick borne disease) and Lyme Disease. I had $1200 work for blood tests and my total bill was $10 for me. Even I thought that was ridiculous. I should have paid at least $100 myself. But most people don't have the funds for that kind of off the wall cost in testing. And even then, it was the first time I actually saw a doctor in more than 8 years. Every other time I saw a Nurse Practitioner. I was beginning to wonder if there really were any doctors in the system or if it was just a myth.
1) Some say Insurance companies deliberately wants Obamacaare to fail by withdrawing widely used plans. In my experience my doctors outright didnt accept Marketplace plans and Blue cross stopped PPO plans suddenly.
2) Overall Mean mentality of consumers about "My tax money" going to support and subsidize others and Corps priority of profits over people.
3) Kind of socialist principle.
4) Increase in premiums ( even though Insurers do this than the Marketplace).
I still think it was a step in the right direction towards some regulation and universal healthcare. ( except of course the penalty for not having one).
Can any one point why its a failure or success and give reasons?
Few people are fully competent to discuss the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and even fewer are competent to discuss it without being politically biased. Having said that, in recognition of my limitations, there are some general impressions I think one should consider in regards to your question and which may help put into perspective what others have posted:
- PPACA is very similar to one or more plans proposed by Republicans to counter similar health care efforts of Democratic Pres. Clinton in the early 1990's.
- To some extent (usually a large extent), each political party supports or criticizes a plan not just for what it will do (and how it will do it) but according to which party will get credit for doing it. If one party does something good for America the other party will try to make it appear as harmful. This makes it very difficult to sort out the misleading rhetoric to gain access to facts and to understand if those facts are short-term or indefinite (things that will change over time).
- For many people, change is something to fear. At the time of Medicare's enactment into law, in the early 1960's, the rhetoric was pretty much the same as one hears about PPACA. Just as Medicare took time to function well, and has undergone many "adjustments" and changes, one should expect the same to be true for PPACA. Medicare still has some problems but given the complexity of it and the politics of it one shouldn't expect any national program to be "perfect". Such plans should be considered a "success" if they do more good than harm...they balance to be a positive.
For many consumers, I can agree, however, it is scarcely reasonable to expect a working class household to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for cancer treatment or any of a number of very expensive conditions.
I agree, of course. Payment for cancer treatment is the kind of thing that absolutely should be financed via the insurance model -- it is the equivalent of a car wreck: it is material and unforeseen. It is something that happens to some of us but not to all of us. It is reasonable for you and I to have a pact that says we will help each other financially in the event one of us gets cancer. Extending the two person model to an N person model -- well, that's how you get the insurance industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
I think the key is to make deductibles high enough to encourage people to stay well when possible, but not so high that people are royally scr**ed if they are unlucky enough to be really, really ill or are stuck with a chronic condition requiring expensive prescription drugs.
At this point, given the overall system is where it is, I agree to the high deductibles. High deductibles are one of our few tools available to us.
* Is the purpose of high deductibles to encourage people to stay well when possible?
* Or is the purpose of high deductibles to incent economic consumer behavior -- using the price system to allocate scarce dollars?
* Or is the purpose of high deductibles to discourage over-consumption of health care products & services?
* Or is the purpose of high deductibles to reduce the absolute dollars spent on the healthcare industry?
In aggregate, the only way to effectively get sanity in the price of insurance premiums is to focus on the quantity of aggregate health care services actually consumed, because insurance premiums are a function of that aggregate consumption. High deductibles helps.
However, high deductibles doesn't seem to incent good behaviour at the margin among those who have already met their high deductible. If you think you're going to meet your deductible, the incentive is to load up the truck with everything you might possible want during the current plan year.
High deductibles also doesn't seem to incent good behaviour at the margin among those who are in the final stages of life. The one thing we all have in common is we will one day die. We've all seen the statistics about the huge fraction of health care services consumed during the final months and years of life. Those so-called end-of-life services are currently being financed via higher insurance premiums even though they are predictable and not the equivalent of a car wreck.
Personally, I think we do indeed need those infamous "death panels."
My personal experience has been: 1) a higher premium, 2) a higher deductible, and 3) reduced coverage. Also, I didn't get to keep the plan that I had, like Obama promised.
Do you actually consume more or less actual health care services given the higher premiums, higher deductibles and reduced coverage? Do you go to the doctor less often? Consume fewer ancillary health care services such as X-Rays, CTs, MRIs, lab tests, office tests, prescription medications, etc etc etc?
Or do you consume the same amount of health care services as you used to consume, and you've cut back in others areas to fund it?
Obamacare does nothing to make healthcare affordable.
Here is a list of reforms that I think can reduce healthcare for everyone:
Everyone should be allowed to contribute before tax dollars to a Health Savings account. This would be treated like a self administered ROTH IRA account with a few differences; withdrawals for medical expenses with no penalty. Could be taken out at age 70 with no penalties. Could be passed on at death tax free to heirs.
All LOW INCOME citizens would receive an annual amount of credit to be used for medical expenses. All medical professionals would be allowed to accept a voucher for services at their regular fee. This would free up the EMERGENCY rooms to assist actual EMERGENCY patients.
Tort reform to limit the cost of MALPRACTICE Insurance.
Let Insurance companies sell in all the states.
Reduce the amount of record keeping and paperwork that Medical Professionals must handle.
Insurance companies could not refuse coverage because of PRE EXISTING conditions.
Medical histories would be treated as PRIVATE information and only available to those with a NEED TO KNOW to assist with medical needs. Insurance companies would NEVER be allowed to access these records.
More to follow.
I won't argue your points, I have no agreement or difference with them except to say this:
Every time I hear people say tort reform it is left at just that... Stop lawsuits. But I never hear anything about how to get rid of bad doctors and facilities. Currently they are protected and the only way to know you have a bad doctor is to hear it from a friend or to find out when you wake up with a kidney missing when you went in for a nose job. If you want tort reform - fine, but don't think it is a whole solution.
I am uninsurable the old way die to a chronic illness .
I mean this with all respect, and not as an attack.
Insurance should be for the material and unforeseen - like a car wreck. Insurance should not be for the foreseeable such as chronic illness. You should fund care for chronic illness differently.
Collectively, we should not fund the foreseeable with insurance. That is moral hazard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessCottonPuff
Only if my husbands job carried it which they rarely did and even then going to the specialists were still almost impossible. I now go to the Dr. constantly
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. When people spend their own money, they are usually fairly responsible. When people spend someone else's money, they "go to the Dr. constantly."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchessCottonPuff
Then of course you have all these angry greedy ins CEO's now who cannot get that new boat or 4th house somewhere. There's profit and there is greed .
Under Obamacare, insurance company profits and administrative expenses (salaries) have been regulated. Those regulations prevent insurance companies from increasing premiums just to pay employees more money or to increase profits for shareholders (who, for the most part, are the defined benefit pension plans of public sector workers).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
