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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth
Im just worried that the costs wont be distributed EFFICIENTLY. I certainly cant afford 1000 a month for health insurance for my family of three. Im paying 600 right now. I dont see how making healthcare universal would LOWER the costs. Im going to vote based on what it would do to my household expenses.
Did you notice that the only group that did not speak out about the ACA were the insurance companies? Gee, I wonder why?
The US spends 1/3 more as a percentage of GDP as does Canada, and people live longer in Canada. The results speak for themselves, as opposed to anecdotal discussions. Remove the cost inefficiencies out of the system, like the multiple billing personal each doctor needs, and just that will lower costs.
Did you notice that the only group that did not speak out about the ACA were the insurance companies? Gee, I wonder why?
The US spends 1/3 more as a percentage of GDP as does Canada, and people live longer in Canada. The results speak for themselves, as opposed to anecdotal discussions. Remove the cost inefficiencies out of the system, like the multiple billing personal each doctor needs, and just that will lower costs.
Right but this sounds like one of those "Lets do it then find out what it costs" scenarios.
Just anecdotal stuff here but my husband is British and he's always said their healthcare is great. He can't get over how different it is over here in the USA.
One example: his pcp just sits there and asks him if he wants any prescriptions. Then he asks him if he needs any tests. That's about it. Yesterday he went to the dr's office with an insurance inquiry and he noticed his doctor now has another office!
Right across the hall--his new office has a sign on the door: Dr. (____) Weight Loss. Guess with the obesity epidemic this dr. has realized there's more money in weight loss than in being a pcp. It's all about money. (Last year my husband had to switch his heath insurance because this dr. said his insurance company didn't reimburse well enough.) So it IS about money.
Single payer insurance would fix that but it never seems to happen.
Im just worried that the costs wont be distributed EFFICIENTLY. I certainly cant afford 1000 a month for health insurance for my family of three. Im paying 600 right now. I dont see how making healthcare universal would LOWER the costs. Im going to vote based on what it would do to my household expenses.
The income tax system is progressive, so the burden falls on those with the ability to pay. You would pay less, I'd pay about the same (counting the $2000 a month premiums), richer people would pay more. And no ne would ever have to skip an insulin dose because they can't get their script filled.
The hospitals and insurers are making too much money and have deep pockets to buy off congress and the house so that we will never have single payer insurance. My mother in law passed away after a long battle with copd and emphysema. She was taken to the hospital after she was throwing up for a day and her hospice nurse said she couldn't do anything for her she had the gastroenteritis aka stomach flu. So she went to the hospital at like 1 am one night and passed away at 10 pm the following night. She was basically sedated the whole time and they sent several specialist in to check on her even though she wasn't conscious. The total bill that arrive for one day in the hospital was $150,000. The insurance tried to deny the claim several times but ended up paying. $150k for one day that is ridiculous.
Number one is due to liability. Drs. are covering their rear ends just in case something was not diagnosed correctly without a thousand tests. If we redid our tort system in this country, their insurance would not cost and arm and a leg.
Can't speak for England, but I have plenty of relatives in CAN who will tell you that their health system is not what it is cracked up to be.
If you are sick with a cold, you break your arm, you stub your toe, all is great. Need a knee replaced, expect to wait six months or maybe longer (my cousin waited just under six months). And if their health system was so great, why do their really rich and politicians come over to the USA for serious health problems like heart surgery?
Someone needs to show me, where in the Constitutions, it says healthcare is part of your rights. Of course, those screaming for free healthcare don't understand the word FREE, or they are low income, or not even working and they want everything for free.
I think the bottom line here is that the health insurance system in the US is fantastic .... IF you can afford it. Right now in the US we have extremes, fantastic healthcare for people who have coverage through Medicare/Medicaid benefits, fantastic employer plans or are independently wealthy enough to pay high deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses. For the rest of the country, I'd be willing to wager that they'd prefer consistent access to free healthcare over the prospect of either nothing or the potential of losing your real, tangible assets and facing bankruptcy to cover the costs of a chronic condition.
I'll use myself as an example because anecdotal examples are great. My current employer offers what can be considered "decent" healthcare coverage, consisting of lowish premiums. I have selected something called a consumer-driven plan which means that I get to pay lower premiums in exchange for a high-deductible plan coupled with an employer-funded HSA. This works great for me, as I don't have any chronic conditions and only see the Dr maybe 1-2 times a year. Provided that I don't get cancer, hit by a car or any other expensive or chronic condition, I can comfortably continue to spend out of my HSA to cover the maybe $200-400 a year I might spend on office visits or the occasional trip to urgent care. Beyond that, I'm looking at paying $3K out of pocket for anything before my insurance kicks in, after which they'll cover 80%.
Let's consider that for a moment and then ask how many people with "decent" (according to my definition above) health insurance can really afford to pony up $3,000 to cover the deductible. So yes, while I technically might have access to that fantastic, laprascopic knee surgery or a particularly innovative cancer treatment that they don't have in the UK or Canada, I still need to come up with a lot of money to pay for it. And, if I can't even afford the *basic* knee surgery (equivalent to say, NHS standards), then I'm out of luck. The reason the wealthy politicians come to the US is to avail themselves of the innovative medical technologies the US offers - which, as I mentioned, comes at a high premium. Many people would be happy to have the adequate, free surgery as opposed to facing significant financial hardship to afford the same, average surgery in the US.
So, again, the question comes down to - adequate care for all, or fantastic care for a few? Public sentiment in the US seems to favor the latter, while Europe has opted for the former. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
I think the bottom line here is that the health insurance system in the US is fantastic .... IF you can afford it. Right now in the US we have extremes, fantastic healthcare for people who have coverage through Medicare/Medicaid benefits, fantastic employer plans or are independently wealthy enough to pay high deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses. For the rest of the country, I'd be willing to wager that they'd prefer consistent access to free healthcare over the prospect of either nothing or the potential of losing your real, tangible assets and facing bankruptcy to cover the costs of a chronic condition.
I'll use myself as an example because anecdotal examples are great. My current employer offers what can be considered "decent" healthcare coverage, consisting of lowish premiums. I have selected something called a consumer-driven plan which means that I get to pay lower premiums in exchange for a high-deductible plan coupled with an employer-funded HSA. This works great for me, as I don't have any chronic conditions and only see the Dr maybe 1-2 times a year. Provided that I don't get cancer, hit by a car or any other expensive or chronic condition, I can comfortably continue to spend out of my HSA to cover the maybe $200-400 a year I might spend on office visits or the occasional trip to urgent care. Beyond that, I'm looking at paying $3K out of pocket for anything before my insurance kicks in, after which they'll cover 80%.
Let's consider that for a moment and then ask how many people with "decent" (according to my definition above) health insurance can really afford to pony up $3,000 to cover the deductible. So yes, while I technically might have access to that fantastic, laprascopic knee surgery or a particularly innovative cancer treatment that they don't have in the UK or Canada, I still need to come up with a lot of money to pay for it. And, if I can't even afford the *basic* knee surgery (equivalent to say, NHS standards), then I'm out of luck. The reason the wealthy politicians come to the US is to avail themselves of the innovative medical technologies the US offers - which, as I mentioned, comes at a high premium. Many people would be happy to have the adequate, free surgery as opposed to facing significant financial hardship to afford the same, average surgery in the US.
So, again, the question comes down to - adequate care for all, or fantastic care for a few? Public sentiment in the US seems to favor the latter, while Europe has opted for the former. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
I also have one of those plans. My employer practically begs us to choose it because the premiums are so much lower. If you can go without seeing the doctor for.... about 3 years for anything other than a routine check up, the cumulative impact of your employer's HSA contribution in addition to whatever you contribute should add up to well more than the out of pocket max.
The problem is that it's kind of like the Hunger Games in that you have to last long enough for it to be worth it. You need to have a good number of healthy years. If you can go 5 or 6 years accumulating employer contributions without drawing much from the HSA you can start investing the funds, which is kind of a cool feature.
Still, it's not exactly equitable because it only favors the healthy and problem-free. Unfortunately, the Republican / corportate approach to health care reform is AT BEST some kind of HSA-based plan.
Just so people will know, even Medicare isn't that great. I'm on it. I paid into it all my life, as we all do. I have the monthly premiums automatically deducted but I think they're about $200/month. But then you need to buy an extra plan to go with it.
It's extremely complicated but you have Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D and more. You can also buy an inexpensive ($50-$100 usually) Advantage plan with high deductibles and co-payments, or, of you can afford it, you can buy a Medicare Supplement plan. There are also Medigap plans to fill in the part that you'll owe due to not reaching the deductible.
Wealthy retirees can afford all the extras and can get Cadillac treatment while others more or less take a gamble and buy whatever plan they think they can afford. Just hope and pray they don't get sick.
We definitely need ONE good plan for all. I'd hope that comes with an emphasis upon prevention so that we can all save money!
Just so people will know, even Medicare isn't that great. I'm on it. I paid into it all my life, as we all do. I have the monthly premiums automatically deducted but I think they're about $200/month. But then you need to buy an extra plan to go with it.
It's extremely complicated but you have Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D and more. You can also buy an inexpensive ($50-$100 usually) Advantage plan with high deductibles and co-payments, or, of you can afford it, you can buy a Medicare Supplement plan. There are also Medigap plans to fill in the part that you'll owe due to not reaching the deductible.
Wealthy retirees can afford all the extras and can get Cadillac treatment while others more or less take a gamble and buy whatever plan they think they can afford. Just hope and pray they don't get sick.
We definitely need ONE good plan for all. I'd hope that comes with an emphasis upon prevention so that we can all save money!
And there are plenty of doctors not accepting new medicare patients.
But, you bring up a point that has to be discussed.. And that's your last point about prevention.
Search around here.. you'll find people who, in order to qualify for health coverage through their company, are required to have an annual physical.. If they don't do it.. no coverage.. And do they whine about that.
Why do companies do that? because it costs FAR less to treat high blood pressure and get it under control than it does to pay for your hospitalization and care after the stroke. It costs far less to monitor and head off diabetes before they're paying for your toes, fingers or legs to be lopped off, and all the money they'd pay trying to save them from being lopped off.
Your common blood pressure medication.. Lisinopril.. Anyone with HBP knows that one.. I was put on it before it was changed because it made me swell up like a tick.. But, that's generally in the $4/mo at Walmart or $6 or whatever it is.. $50 a year for 20 years is one hell of a lot cheaper and better than 3 days in the hospital for a heart attack.
That is the very definition of win-win right there.. But, nooooooo..
For the people complaining about defense spending.. Look at the bigger picture.. Let's say we cut defense spending.. Now, all those military people are on the unemployment line.. Someone can actually pull the numbers, but if we cut our military by half, I figure that would at least double the unemployment figures. And, some of those people couldn't handle a job outside the military. But, you cut it, your costs for other social programs go up.. More people unemployed, more on food stamps.. It's way oversimplified to think that we cut the military budget and suddenly have lots of money to spend.. No.. That money would have to go to cover the consequences of cutting the military budget. And, those saying cut the military budget would be the ones calling for heads to roll if we were attacked again.
We have lots of people with 'great ideas'.. Great Ideas that haven't been thought out. Most of the people we have with those ideas that haven't been fully thought out are currently running for president.
For the people complaining about defense spending.. Look at the bigger picture.. Let's say we cut defense spending.. Now, all those military people are on the unemployment line.. Someone can actually pull the numbers, but if we cut our military by half, I figure that would at least double the unemployment figures. And, some of those people couldn't handle a job outside the military. But, you cut it, your costs for other social programs go up.. More people unemployed, more on food stamps.. It's way oversimplified to think that we cut the military budget and suddenly have lots of money to spend.. No.. That money would have to go to cover the consequences of cutting the military budget. And, those saying cut the military budget would be the ones calling for heads to roll if we were attacked again.
Clearly you have a low opinion of the military.
First, the numbers. There are about 1,500,000 people on active duty in the military. There are 9,000,000 people identified as unemployed--this is the number currently actively seeking a job, not counting those who have given up. So, no, if you cut the military by half, it would not double the unemployment figure--nowhere near it by a magnitude. And most of them would find jobs outside the military, as almost all of them do...because no more than 1% stay in the military long enough and reach a rank high enough to totally retire after service.
However, cutting the military in half will have its greatest effect on the "military-industrial complex." It would put a heck of a lot of military contractors out of business as well as all of their subcontractors. Hundreds of thousands of civilians from General Dynamics to Hewlett-Packard to Office Depot down to companies that make shoelaces will lose their jobs.
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.
