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.
As stated in post # 102 of Feb 14th; articles appear in my local paper here in Florida on a weekly basis showing some failing in healthcare delivery in the U.S.......well here we are scarcely two days later and yet another horror story covering a broad spectrum of people across the nation:
470,000 people having their coverage terminated due to unresolved documentation issues.......???????
This is just one little daily paper reporting this stuff.
You've been in the country long enough, for enough years. This surprises you? And you take something in a newspaper as gospel?
"Hundreds of thousands of people lose financial help and even their policies under the health law, because they get tangled in a web of paperwork problems involving income, citizenship and taxes. Some are dealing with serious illnesses like cancer."
Let's take these points one at a time.
Income - you won't lose your policy due to income. However, the amount of subsidy you receive changes due to level of income. Earn more than the threshold? You can lose your subsidy partially or entirely, and may have to pay it back. This has been clearly communicated even before the ACA rollout.
Citizenship - not in the country legally? You are NOT eligible for a policy. Sorry. I believe that this is the same case in Canada, so nothing new there (despite Michael Moore's "Sicko" movie having people from Detroit flock to Windsor for OHIP coverage you can't do that, at least anymore). I'd like to know how many of those 470,000 with "unresolved documentation issues" are "undocumented immigrants". At least a few.
Taxes - if you file taxes, then you need to state in your filing that you have health care coverage or pay a penalty. Both the amount of the penalty and the fact that you have to pay have both been clearly communicated even before the ACA rollout. None of this would cause you to lose coverage. By the way, if you owe money due to the penalty the IRS won't go into your bank account and take it. It'll just be deducted from your refund, if any. People who are expecting a large refund should probably adjust their withholding anyway.
As to the person who is the subject of the article - Walt Whitlow - whose premiums and deductibles went up, well, that happened to many people signing up for Obamacare. Unfortunately Obama's promises of "your premiums will decrease by $2,500 a year" and "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" were not necessarily kept.
Also, it's not clear with Walt why he signed up for Obamacare. Did he lose his job due to his cancer? As someone with very good coverage in the US, I know that a $900 annual deductible is pretty good. He probably had a good policy with his employer (if that was the case). Obamacare's purpose is not to make insurance "cheap", it's to make it so you don't have to go bankrupt if you need expensive care.
What I won't debate - whenever you roll out a program, especially a government program, to hundreds of millions of people making a major change in how things are done there are going to be problems. Obamacare itself was full of an excessive amount of issues in its implementation, but that's a whole different thing.
Title of the thread suggesting Canada's system cratering according to a Texas poster.
This thread solicited any number of "opinions" related to the topic but the main issue is an American's OPINION about Canada's system being unsustainable based upon some stuff he might have read somewhere.
No Mark, I am not surprised by anything I read regarding American healthcare
Yes Mark, I attribute 'equal to' or 'better than' credibility to newspaper articles; certainly over that of biased and opinionated forums.
Walt Whitlow was ONE of the cases in the article highlighted from over 470,000 cases of cancellations in the year prior to Sept.
One other was a case of a woman billed $100,000 for breast cancer treatments prior to paperwork error being resolved and her finally being deemed eligible for insurance. She was the woman "wrongly" accused of being in the country illegally.
.
These people were forced to make some decision at some point and they may have chosen badly but were forced to choose nonetheless. Like playing darts with your future.
The single quote that got to me was this one: "The paperwork tangle is more likely to trap the innocent than the fraudsters."
Using the descriptor of "cratering" and particularly in reference to comparing another country's system to that of the Texan's would seem to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
That is the crux of all of these threads generated from an ill-informed opinion seeking to forestall any sensible solution to America's current healthcare "coverage" problem using another country's system as an example to avoid.
Title of the thread suggesting Canada's system cratering according to a Texas poster.
This thread solicited any number of "opinions" related to the topic but the main issue is an American's OPINION about Canada's system being unsustainable based upon some stuff he might have read somewhere.
No Mark, I am not surprised by anything I read regarding American healthcare
Yes Mark, I attribute 'equal to' or 'better than' credibility to newspaper articles; certainly over that of biased and opinionated forums.
Walt Whitlow was ONE of the cases in the article highlighted from over 470,000 cases of cancellations in the year prior to Sept.
One other was a case of a woman billed $100,000 for breast cancer treatments prior to paperwork error being resolved and her finally being deemed eligible for insurance. She was the woman "wrongly" accused of being in the country illegally.
.
These people were forced to make some decision at some point and they may have chosen badly but were forced to choose nonetheless. Like playing darts with your future.
The single quote that got to me was this one: "The paperwork tangle is more likely to trap the innocent than the fraudsters."
Using the descriptor of "cratering" and particularly in reference to comparing another country's system to that of the Texan's would seem to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
That is the crux of all of these threads generated from an ill-informed opinion seeking to forestall any sensible solution to America's current healthcare "coverage" problem using another country's system as an example to avoid.
Most of the cases you point out are due to paperwork errors and issues. What would your suggestion be to prevent them?
The fact is that, while our hospitals save lives every day, they are also the third leading cause of avoidable death each year.
Quote:
Canada's hospital incident reporting is also less transparent and user-friendly than it is in the U.S., where a number of rating systems publicly grade a hospital's safety record patient satisfaction scores.
You mean you can't get stats on individual hospitals and practitioners?
If that's the case I find that surprising.
Before getting a procedure done in the US I check out the medical facility/hospital to see how they rank, both overall and within the area. I also check out the surgeon doing the procedure, for his/her educational background, board certification, # of procedures done (not always available but sometimes are), any disciplinary action and so on.
Assuming I needed non-emergency care, how would someone in Canada go about selecting the person doing their surgery? Or the hospital to do it in? I may have an excellent cardiologist but he/she might not be the one doing the surgery.
Assuming I neede non-emergency care, how would someone in Canada go about selecting the person doing their surgery? Or the hospital to do it in? I may have an excellent cardiologist but he/she might not be the one doing the surgery.
I've never heard of anyone picking their surgeon. I've had knee surgery, which obviously isn't emergency surgery and I was simply referred by my GP.
I'm not surprised, and I also think it's a function of Canada's attitude towards healthcare vs. the US.
As the US's system is harder to navigate (insurance types, who takes insurance, etc.) I think there is a natural distrust of things and therefore a need to take things into your own hands. I know people in NY that would NEVER just take their GP's word when it comes to surgery. In fact, they'll wait in order to get a top Manhattan surgeon to get it done. A relative of mine who lives down South traveled to Alabama for hip replacement surgery because the outcomes were better.
I could also be generalizing too much - perhaps people in the Midwest here have the same attitude as I attribute to Canada. There are also Americans, particularly ones in a HMO, that don't really have choice. It's a mixed bag.
You have the right to google, you have the right to talk to friends, you have the right to perform any research regarding your required treatment THEN you can ask your GP his opinion regarding surgeons he/she has had experience with and would be prepared to recommend then request a referral to the specialist.
In the case of my first knee operation it was a simple matter of my GP telling me I "probably" needed a ligament repair or removal and as is common his next question was "are you aware of a surgeon you might prefer". To which I answered in the affirmative and before I left my G/P's office an appointment had been scheduled for the next afternoon as I was in a moderate to extreme amount of pain. The surgery was performed the day after seeing him.
I have had arthroscopic surgery to both knees, two eye surgeries, an artificial stapes installed in left ear and any number of specialist procedures performed throughout my adult life and in all cases I was at complete liberty to question each specialist's diagnosis and request a 2nd opinion and select either that specialist or a surgeon I preferred due to any number of reasons including his ability to perform the surgery at my local hospital. If I didn't like the guy at all, for whatever reason, I was free to move on to another.
I have had two dental implants as well dating back to the 80's and the procedure was the same in those instances as well.
Should I have some major ailment related to cardiac or cancer the same procedure would prevail with the choice of hospital of course being limited to having the facilities required to perform the service and the after surgery 'special' recovery required.
That has been my experience for my seventy years of life with the only exception being one of the eye surgeries performed in a Naval Hospital in Forces base HNCS NADEN in the early 60's where no choice was given at all.
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.
