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.
Nothing is 100% paid for.
What happened to "emergency funds" ?
Or paying off bills over time ?
People are living above their means and when a financial crisis hits they are doomed.
And medical facilities don't help these days either.
They don't want to collect money over time..right to the collection agencies if you can't pay in full.
Medical care is in a sad, sorry state.
Dental and vision are not far behind from the looks of things.
I can agree with much of what you said, but unfortunately there is no turning back, and the only viable fix is a "single payer system", which is where we are headed. I believe that most that backed the ACA knew it was not going to work, but also know it will be the pathway to single payer.
I can agree with much of what you said, but unfortunately there is no turning back, and the only viable fix is a "single payer system", which is where we are headed. I believe that most that backed the ACA knew it was not going to work, but also know it will be the pathway to single payer.
Sadly I agree, there is no turning back.
We are becoming a nation of subsidized programs because no one can afford to pay for anything in full.
The main reason Medical care in the USA is astronomically expensive is because it's a "FOR PROFIT" system.
In Canada where it is not a for profit, we get about 10 times the bang for every dollar spent on our healthcare system. It's just so frigging simple.
Before anyone suggests that having a medical system that is for, by and of the people is socialist just think for a minute. Does the fact that most of the roads in the USA are pubic owned make the country socialist? Of course it does not. Roads are considered an essential public service and it is not in the public's best interests that they all be privately owned.
As in so many many things American, what is in the best interests of the people and the country does not matter one single little bit. It's the special interests that call the shots no matter how damaging to the country those interests may be. It's long past time that the American people woke up and said, "It's our interests that are paramount in this country. We will do what is best for us because we are the country, what is best for us will ultimately be what is best for the country."
The default position of all the special interests is, "We don't care what is best for either the people or the country. We are only interested in what is best for us, the mighty 1%. If what is best for us screws the country then too bad USA. We will oppose every single thing that might be of benefit for the people and the country because if it's good for them it must be bad for us"!!!!!!
I can agree with much of what you said, but unfortunately there is no turning back, and the only viable fix is a "single payer system", which is where we are headed. I believe that most that backed the ACA knew it was not going to work, but also know it will be the pathway to single payer.
Yep - it's the only option. The only way to fix entitlement costs (which are really Medicare/Medicaid costs, since to the extent that Social Security is a problem, the fix is fairly easy). And therefore the only real way to fix the federal budget.
Dems want it because it will insure (almost?) everyone. Republicans will (eventually) want it because it's the only path to fiscal stability.
The only question is when. When will one of the parties be in a position to make the leap.
When military dependents use military hospitals they don't pay money out of their pocket for that care. Back in the early 80s one Air Force base decided to charge $1 for parking at their hospital. The number of appointments decrease by over 200%. They had to end the experiment when it was discovered that this was illegal for them to charge a fee to park on government owned property. Appointments got back up to the former level within six months. Just by making people accountable for a lousy one dollar it decreased the expenses of military care significantly at that base. Personally, I thought it was an indication that they needed to charge everyone a dollar for an appointment to end the practice by some people of running to the doctor or ER every time their child got the sniffles. People are a lot more hesitant to use services when they have to pay for it themselves, even if it is just one dollar.
I can agree with much of what you said, but unfortunately there is no turning back, and the only viable fix is a "single payer system", which is where we are headed. I believe that most that backed the ACA knew it was not going to work, but also know it will be the pathway to single payer.
Without MAJOR political reform I doubt very much the USA is capable of running a single payer universal healthcare system. Every single thing that is run by the US government is corrupt to the core. There is never ending political interference, patronage, fraud, waste, inefficiency and just a general cluster f..k
We would no doubt have the same problem with our universal healthcare system except it was designed in such a way to KEEP THE POLITICANS grubby fingers out of it. The government's role is to provide the funding for the system that is designed and run by the medical professionals. So, the way it works here is the government gives a local healthcare corporation X dollars and demand 5X dollars worth of services for that funding. There is extremely little room for financial shenanagans.
In the Canadian system the federal government has no role at all other than funding by a complicated formula called equalization payments. This money is given to the provinces who are then totally responsible for each of their own medical systems. The amount of money is calculated by the relative wealth of each province or territory. In order to get the equalization dollars each juristiction must meet a minimum level of healthcare service as set out in the Canada health act. They are free to design and operate their system as they see fit within those parameters.
Therefore each province and territory will have differences in the style and delivery of their own systems. For example, my daughter moved to Saskatchewan last year. Her 9 year old daughter was having some trouble adjusting and my daughter phoned a medical hotline they have that you can call and inquire about anything really. The result was that almost immediately, mental health care professionals specializing in child issues began to come right to the house to work with my grand daughter. They helped a great feal and she is now happy and doing well in her new environment. You would have to jump through hoops to get that kind of service here in Ontario where I live.
If our system was to be tried in the USA then each State would be responsible for their own healthcare. The EQUALIZATION FORMULA creates a pretty even playing field where the poorer states recieve a much larger % of their healthcare dollars from the federal government and the richer states recieve much less. If a state did not want to participate they get nothing at all but the share they would have gotten which is derived from the general federal revenues would go to some other state. I doubt any state would be willing to forgo what could be 50% or more of their entire budget.
When military dependents use military hospitals they don't pay money out of their pocket for that care. Back in the early 80s one Air Force base decided to charge $1 for parking at their hospital. The number of appointments decrease by over 200%. They had to end the experiment when it was discovered that this was illegal for them to charge a fee to park on government owned property. Appointments got back up to the former level within six months. Just by making people accountable for a lousy one dollar it decreased the expenses of military care significantly at that base. Personally, I thought it was an indication that they needed to charge everyone a dollar for an appointment to end the practice by some people of running to the doctor or ER every time their child got the sniffles. People are a lot more hesitant to use services when they have to pay for it themselves, even if it is just one dollar.
This is a very common misconception. My son who is a medical specialist now used to be a family Dr. for a few years told me that the costs associated with people who should have come in to see him but put it off for some reason dwarfed the costs of treating the snivelers.
He actually liked the snivelers because he got paid x dollars for each office appointment and the snivelers took almost no time at all. This gave him the necessary income he needed so that he was able to spend as much time as was needed with the cases that needed much time and investigation devoted to them. One such appointment might take hours and he could dispense with the malingerers in 5 minutes or less. So in effect these non sick paitients subsidized the ones that really need the care.
If our system was to be tried in the USA then each State would be responsible for their own healthcare. The EQUALIZATION FORMULA creates a pretty even playing field where the poorer states recieve a much larger % of their healthcare dollars from the federal government and the richer states recieve much less.
In all likelihood, the US will end up with something similar eventually. Most of the people who think seriously about this issue use "single-payer" as shorthand for what would actually be fifty single-payer systems operating under a federal regulatory umbrella.
Or perhaps somewhat fewer than fifty, since as you point out, even in Canada provinces are allowed to forgo equalization payments if they don't want to play, and in the US there would probably be a small number of states who would sit it out.
Something along these lines may possibly be achievable within the framework of the ACA without major legislative surgery - if genuinely non-profit plans in the exchanges take off, gain enough subscribers to be able to lower premiums below what private insurance can offer, and gain sufficient weight in the market to demand lower reimbursement rates from providers.
Big ifs, but probably necessary in order to reduce federal subsidies to acceptable levels.
The actual percentage due to medical bankruptcy is closer to 20%. Many people EVEN BEFORE they start having medical problems were already deep in debt. Single payer system does not affect bankrutpcy. In fact Canada which has a national health insurance plan has MORE people declaring bankruptcy.
So where does the truth lie? The answer is probably much less than than the 60% of medical bankruptcy the Harvard study show.
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.
