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.
The Minnesota Legislative Auditor says he thinks MNSure isn't ready to do business but was rushed to meet an October 1 deadline. His office will be investigating the security breach at MNSure last week when MNSure accidentally released individuals' personal data, including social security numbers.
"MNsure, without adequate testing and securing, is moving too fast." Nobles acknowledged his office is investigating the breach of security at MNsure and says, "I really didn't think we would be looking into MNsure this soon."
I'll be honest.. I wish we had a universal health care system like Europe has, where they regulate the costs of care and prescription drugs along with tort reform to reduce lawsuits and of course sealing up the borders so we don't have to treat illegal immigrants in the ERs...
I don't like how people are basically chained to a full time job to get health care in this country.. it would be nice to be able to quit my job with no hassle, retain insurance, be able to drive around the country and find a new place to live, without worrying that I might run up a $50k medical bill for an ER visit and have to hide all my assets away in bullion buried in the ground to keep from losing the little I've managed to save away during my life.
I know a lot of people are against government run programs and indeed it seems like the US government does a pretty bad job at running programs efficiently compared to Europeans but it's a better alternative than the for profit system we have now, in my opinion. Health care is very expensive here, much of it tied up in paperwork.
The ACA will give you that flexibility as of 1/1/14...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WriterDude
This is really well-said, Stockwiz. I'm with you.
I wonder if ACA supporters realize the limitations on damages in countries that more closely manage their healthcare costs? Here's the Library of Congress report - scroll down and read the Liability section. (I'll cheat for you: they limit pain and suffering damages to C$100,000.)
Without significant tort reform, medical insurance reform won't work.
In other news, if you write a law saying that anyone doing more than 30 hours/week has to be covered under company-provided health insurance, employers will create more part-time jobs than full-time jobs. Oh, right, we already know that. Here's a link to the Boston Globe, which can't easily be described as a hotbed of conservative activism: New jobs disproportionately low paying or part time - Business - The Boston Globe.
You do realize that care in Europe and Canada is not free and it comes at a high cost financially and medically. The wait times for non-emergency care are months and months to years. Getting appointments or seeing different doctors is almost impossible. If you don't like the one specialist in your area, too bad, you don't have a choice. Sorry, but reading about the issues people have getting care in Canada and England, no thanks. Now, you can get a private plan there and that changes the entire picture, however, you are already paying a huge portion of your income to pay for your "free" care, then premiums for a private plan and you are spending WAY MORE then your premiums and out of pockets costs in the US. The only difference is you pay for your care up front, whether you use it or not. At least here, after premiums, if you don't go to the doctor, you don't pay anything.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,074,740 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
The ACA will give you that flexibility as of 1/1/14...
You do realize that care in Europe and Canada is not free and it comes at a high cost financially and medically. The wait times for non-emergency care are months and months to years. Getting appointments or seeing different doctors is almost impossible. If you don't like the one specialist in your area, too bad, you don't have a choice.
Golfgal, I work with literally dozens of people in the UK, Canada, and I believe that you are overstating the issues. Almost everyone I've talked to is very happy with their national health care, and I hear a lot more complaints from coworkers in the US than I do from folks overseas.
They really don't understand why we do things the way we do in this country w.r.t. health care, and I don't either. We spend a LOT more on health care here.
Golfgal, I work with literally dozens of people in the UK, Canada, and I believe that you are overstating the issues. Almost everyone I've talked to is very happy with their national health care, and I hear a lot more complaints from coworkers in the US than I do from folks overseas.
They really don't understand why we do things the way we do in this country w.r.t. health care, and I don't either. We spend a LOT more on health care here.
Well, if you don't know any better....ask them how long they would have to wait to get a knee replacement or have surgery on a shoulder or get a bunion removed or anything like that. You and I could pretty much have those things done within days if our schedules allowed, it's months waits in the UK, Canada, etc. Other procedures are the same and often they don't get to chose where they go. I recently had surgery. People in the UK and Canada report, for the same surgery, that they have 8-12 months wait. Then the equipment to go along with the surgery, they don't get to choose, they are "assigned" what is used. It's "ok" because they don't have any other choice. I started investigating my procedure with one clinic, wasn't happy, moved to another clinic. That is not an option there.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,074,740 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Well, if you don't know any better....ask them how long they would have to wait to get a knee replacement or have surgery on a shoulder or get a bunion removed or anything like that. You and I could pretty much have those things done within days if our schedules allowed, it's months waits in the UK, Canada, etc. Other procedures are the same and often they don't get to chose where they go. I recently had surgery. People in the UK and Canada report, for the same surgery, that they have 8-12 months wait. Then the equipment to go along with the surgery, they don't get to choose, they are "assigned" what is used. It's "ok" because they don't have any other choice. I started investigating my procedure with one clinic, wasn't happy, moved to another clinic. That is not an option there.
For folks in the US with decent coverage, you're probably correct about waiting times, but what exactly are your options in the US when you don't have coverage?
Each approach probably had advantages. I'm just reacting to your assertion that the approaches taken by countries with nationalized health care are terrible. In the general case, that is demonstrably incorrect.
For folks in the US with decent coverage, you're probably correct about waiting times, but what exactly are your options in the US when you don't have coverage?
Each approach probably had advantages. I'm just reacting to your assertion that the approaches taken by countries with nationalized health care are terrible. In the general case, that is demonstrably incorrect.
You go to urgent care or ER and they put you in the same queue as everyone else.
You do realize that care in Europe and Canada is not free and it comes at a high cost financially and medically. The wait times for non-emergency care are months and months to years. Getting appointments or seeing different doctors is almost impossible. If you don't like the one specialist in your area, too bad, you don't have a choice.
Absolutely. I'm aware of some problems with healthcare in the usual example states. Don't ask me about medical care in Bangladesh or Haiti, but I did some research on Canada and northern Europe.
However, you're the one arguing for a state-managed healthcare system, not me. Are you trying to make the case that when government runs healthcare, it sucks? You're right.
So is it possible that you don't understand that what you're describing is precisely the problem? Every defender of the ACA seems to have the perspective that the US healthcare system is awesome, amazing, wonderful. They don't acknowledge that you can't do static analysis in this world, and the simple fact that you can get multiple consultations now doesn't mean you will be able to do that in five years.
When you add millions of people to insurance rolls, without changes in the medical system or the number of medical providers, by definition the medical system is less available to everyone. Static analysis, remember? If you have a car full of people, and add two people without making the car bigger, everybody in the car is less comfortable.
I would have been so much happier if the ACA was built from the concept of making small measured moves, gauging the market response, and only then going to the next set of moves. For example, if they'd eliminated lifetime caps on care, outlawed denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions, instituted tort reform, and allowed medical insurance sales across state lines, those would have been common-sense corrections to eliminate the worst abuses. Instead, its advocates sold it as "health care reform" rather than "health insurance reform," which would have been more honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
At least here, after premiums, if you don't go to the doctor, you don't pay anything.
Let's ignore the fact that now, everyone has to pay either premiums or penalty, whereas before, they could opt out and pay nothing if they didn't go to the doctor. You know, actually nothing.
For folks in the US with decent coverage, you're probably correct about waiting times, but what exactly are your options in the US when you don't have coverage?
Each approach probably had advantages. I'm just reacting to your assertion that the approaches taken by countries with nationalized health care are terrible. In the general case, that is demonstrably incorrect.
Which is what the ACA is addressing. Everyone will have insurance or pay a fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WriterDude
Absolutely. I'm aware of some problems with healthcare in the usual example states. Don't ask me about medical care in Bangladesh or Haiti, but I did some research on Canada and northern Europe.
However, you're the one arguing for a state-managed healthcare system, not me. Are you trying to make the case that when government runs healthcare, it sucks? You're right.
So is it possible that you don't understand that what you're describing is precisely the problem? Every defender of the ACA seems to have the perspective that the US healthcare system is awesome, amazing, wonderful. They don't acknowledge that you can't do static analysis in this world, and the simple fact that you can get multiple consultations now doesn't mean you will be able to do that in five years.
When you add millions of people to insurance rolls, without changes in the medical system or the number of medical providers, by definition the medical system is less available to everyone. Static analysis, remember? If you have a car full of people, and add two people without making the car bigger, everybody in the car is less comfortable.
I would have been so much happier if the ACA was built from the concept of making small measured moves, gauging the market response, and only then going to the next set of moves. For example, if they'd eliminated lifetime caps on care, outlawed denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions, instituted tort reform, and allowed medical insurance sales across state lines, those would have been common-sense corrections to eliminate the worst abuses. Instead, its advocates sold it as "health care reform" rather than "health insurance reform," which would have been more honest.
Let's ignore the fact that now, everyone has to pay either premiums or penalty, whereas before, they could opt out and pay nothing if they didn't go to the doctor. You know, actually nothing.
I am not arguing for a state managed health care system. That is NOT what the ACA is about, nor are the exchanges. The plans are still administered by private health care companies. The exchanges are just health insurance "malls" for people to shop for plans vs having to go to each individual company site.
Yes, you can opt out and pay nothing now but then WE get to pay your medical bills--too bad, so sad, pay for your own care. Maybe you haven't needed it now, but you will eventually....
Technically not everyone has to pay premiums. Premiums are basically on a sliding scale and those that make lower incomes will not pay anything or very little...and that lower income in MN is $94,000 or less...hardly poverty.
Yes, you can opt out and pay nothing now but then WE get to pay your medical bills--too bad, so sad, pay for your own care. Maybe you haven't needed it now, but you will eventually....
Every choice is potentially a cost to someone else; that's part of living in civil society. I don't have kids in school, but my taxes help pay for elementary schools. So based on your statement above, should I say "if you decide to have kids, too bad, so sad, pay for your own schools?"
If you object to people making you pay for their care, how do you square situations where everyone's paying for health insurance, and some people need oncology when you just have a case of the sniffles? In that case, aren't your premiums helping to pay for their care? Or how about if you need a heart/lung transplant, and the person right ahead of you on the transplant list is indigent and pays nothing? Aren't you paying for their health care?
I think you're raising your cost as a separate issue, but like most people on the Pro-ACA side, your actual intention is to create an entitlement to address what you feel is a human rights issue. That intention is laudable, but I feel it's poor public policy.
The United States has always been about freedom and choice. People can reasonably object to trading those freedoms and choices for a managed future.
And it's disingenuous to claim that the ACA exchanges don't represent state management of healthcare. They are expanding government control. The ACA is nothing more than a starting point toward the single-payer system that it was modeled on. It's already transforming the medical system and the economy.
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.
