health care reform?
- Thread starter alr2903
- Start date
Help Support :
The major roadblock to health care reform is the private insurers lobby, who're desperately trying to stop a government/public coverage option. When public coverage is implemented, many or most of these greedy HMO/PPO bastards will go out of business. As they should.
The focus not only on health care, but perscription pricing!
Some drugs can cost $1500.00 a month or more and something needs to be done about it!
Some drugs can cost $1500.00 a month or more and something needs to be done about it!
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
They'll never go out of business, they will simply have to start to compete, and make due with less profit, which they make substantially lots of today.
If it weren't for my coverage....
my prescriptions and diabetes supplies would be just a little over 2,000 a month.
Month, not year.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a generic insulin.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
my prescriptions and diabetes supplies would be just a little over 2,000 a month.
Month, not year.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a generic insulin.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
I angry about the whole mess. Why are we not looking all over the globe to see what works and why. Then look at how to improve and implement that coverage.
I feel that everyone should be provided coverage regardless of income at no cost. Pay for it with a increase in various taxes. As it is now everyone pays for the uninsured since those costs are often absorbed by hospitals and practitioners. focus on preventive care and see the huge cost savings.
I feel that everyone should be provided coverage regardless of income at no cost. Pay for it with a increase in various taxes. As it is now everyone pays for the uninsured since those costs are often absorbed by hospitals and practitioners. focus on preventive care and see the huge cost savings.
these drug companies should not be allowed to hold back on needed medicines for patients.....
theres new drugs out there for Crohn's, the doctor has talked with them for the benefits to put me on them, and they deny payment for the medicine....and yet they talk about QUALITY in living...what a joke!...what am I paying for insurance all these years, and when I get sick they deny me the drugs to get better, why didn't they state this when they started taking my premiums years ago?
theres new drugs out there for Crohn's, the doctor has talked with them for the benefits to put me on them, and they deny payment for the medicine....and yet they talk about QUALITY in living...what a joke!...what am I paying for insurance all these years, and when I get sick they deny me the drugs to get better, why didn't they state this when they started taking my premiums years ago?
Insurance is the biggest scam going, e.g. you can pay auto insurance premiums for 30+ years without a single claim, then get in a wreck and Allstate just might, if they're in a good mood, offer you "accident forgiveness".
If I had a policy with them, I'd return every other premium notice with no check, just a letter stating that I'm giving them "premium forgiveness".
If I had a policy with them, I'd return every other premium notice with no check, just a letter stating that I'm giving them "premium forgiveness".
It Really Isn't Fair to Compare European Countries
Health care systems to that of the United States.
In most cases the former built their state systems when their wasn't a long established priviate system, and or out of socialist "ideals" post WWII (or in some cases WWI)
England/UK there wasn't anyone else to run hospitals and or "health care" system, so the government stepped in, created what there is now and that was that.
For all cases there isn't one European country that can match the population of the United States. Furthermore most all European governments run on the Parliamentary system. It is much easier for a platform to advance when the head of government needs to keep his party in power, and or broker deals with other parties to keep themselves on top.
Contrast that with the United States where power is divided between three branches, and the president has no direct power over Congress and the Senate, and vice versa. Oh the person sitting in the Oval Office does have lots of carrots and sticks to put about, and some power in his own right, but when push comes to shove those sitting elsewhere are more likely to look after their own political survival than go along with scheme that proves unpopular with their district.
Another problem for the United States is many people have health insurance they are quite happy with. No, these are not all "fat cats" and "Wall Street" types, but union members, government workers and such. If the government creates a plan that is overly generous,and costs less than a priviate plan, then people will naturally move over to the government health care system. If enough of that happens costs for those in priviate schemes will rise.
Other fly in the ointment is that for a government health care plan to truly work, and not break the bank, the federal goverment will have to do something it has not done very much of so far; contain costs by using it's buying power. In a country where the military spends several hundred dollars for ONE toilet seat that could be purchased at any supply house for ten dollars, you can see where this will lead.
The other way to keep costs down is to limit access to care and or treatments. If a 75yo man requires expensive treatment for a chronic condition that may only extend his life by a few years, is the cost worth it? Someone somewhere is going to have to write rules and make decisions. It just simply not possible to write a blank check on this issue.
One persons cost cutting, is another cutting another persons income. Now some may say that doctors are over paid and could use a "haircut", but that is not really true. Many areas of the United States have few doctors, especially general practioners. The federal government could offer to pay doctors willing to practice in "underserved" areas more, but that means money has to come from someplace else.
This is the reason so many people are leary of Obama's government health plans. Quite simply there aren't many easy choices to make. To remotely cover even half the current uninsured persons in the United States is going to cost quite allot of money, money the federal government does not have, and both the White House and Congress are loathe to raise taxes. You cannot pay for a scheme of this size with the usual gimmicks and budget slight of hands that normally goes on in Washington, DC. T
Health care systems to that of the United States.
In most cases the former built their state systems when their wasn't a long established priviate system, and or out of socialist "ideals" post WWII (or in some cases WWI)
England/UK there wasn't anyone else to run hospitals and or "health care" system, so the government stepped in, created what there is now and that was that.
For all cases there isn't one European country that can match the population of the United States. Furthermore most all European governments run on the Parliamentary system. It is much easier for a platform to advance when the head of government needs to keep his party in power, and or broker deals with other parties to keep themselves on top.
Contrast that with the United States where power is divided between three branches, and the president has no direct power over Congress and the Senate, and vice versa. Oh the person sitting in the Oval Office does have lots of carrots and sticks to put about, and some power in his own right, but when push comes to shove those sitting elsewhere are more likely to look after their own political survival than go along with scheme that proves unpopular with their district.
Another problem for the United States is many people have health insurance they are quite happy with. No, these are not all "fat cats" and "Wall Street" types, but union members, government workers and such. If the government creates a plan that is overly generous,and costs less than a priviate plan, then people will naturally move over to the government health care system. If enough of that happens costs for those in priviate schemes will rise.
Other fly in the ointment is that for a government health care plan to truly work, and not break the bank, the federal goverment will have to do something it has not done very much of so far; contain costs by using it's buying power. In a country where the military spends several hundred dollars for ONE toilet seat that could be purchased at any supply house for ten dollars, you can see where this will lead.
The other way to keep costs down is to limit access to care and or treatments. If a 75yo man requires expensive treatment for a chronic condition that may only extend his life by a few years, is the cost worth it? Someone somewhere is going to have to write rules and make decisions. It just simply not possible to write a blank check on this issue.
One persons cost cutting, is another cutting another persons income. Now some may say that doctors are over paid and could use a "haircut", but that is not really true. Many areas of the United States have few doctors, especially general practioners. The federal government could offer to pay doctors willing to practice in "underserved" areas more, but that means money has to come from someplace else.
This is the reason so many people are leary of Obama's government health plans. Quite simply there aren't many easy choices to make. To remotely cover even half the current uninsured persons in the United States is going to cost quite allot of money, money the federal government does not have, and both the White House and Congress are loathe to raise taxes. You cannot pay for a scheme of this size with the usual gimmicks and budget slight of hands that normally goes on in Washington, DC. T
Launderess, the simple fact is, defense spending by the United States since the end of WWII represents the greatest squandering of wealth in human history. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 trillion, flushed directly down the toilet to feed an insatiable monster that President Eisenhower specifically warned us about in 1961.
If you actually believe we can't afford universal health care, you've bought into the propaganda.
Of course we can afford it, it's just a matter of national priority, and telling entrenched lobbyists (for the Pentagon, private health insurers, Big Pharma etc) to go fly a kite. Obama is the best chance we've ever had to get it done.
If you actually believe we can't afford universal health care, you've bought into the propaganda.
Of course we can afford it, it's just a matter of national priority, and telling entrenched lobbyists (for the Pentagon, private health insurers, Big Pharma etc) to go fly a kite. Obama is the best chance we've ever had to get it done.
A man who was down-sized from my employer 3 years ago recently died in an emergency room, it turned out he had stopped taking his high blood pressure medication because his new job did not have health care and he was on a waiting list to get assistance from the state. It seems that the bill for his stay before he checked out for ever was $88,000.00 and as he was living with his brother (1/2 of his net pay went to child support payments) it seems unlikely that there will be an estate to pay the bill so the cost is added to the hospitals cost of doing business and must be recovered in higher prices to those who do have means to pay.
It must be taken into consideration that we already have the most barbaric form of health care rationing possible.
General Motors has indicated that it costs over $1000.00 more to build a car in the United States then it does in Canada and the reason is health care cost not hourly wages or other benefits.
The cost of doing nothing is far to high
It must be taken into consideration that we already have the most barbaric form of health care rationing possible.
General Motors has indicated that it costs over $1000.00 more to build a car in the United States then it does in Canada and the reason is health care cost not hourly wages or other benefits.
The cost of doing nothing is far to high
Launderess is right-there is a "dark side" to gov't run healthcare plans.Yes there may be rationing-this could be the worst feature-who decides who will live or die??This is bad.And yes--UP GO your taxes-is this good-NO!And in another thread we were talking about jobs in China---With the cost of govt healthcare-another way to drive jobs out of the US.Your healthcare will become MORE expensive than what it is.Instaed of gov't running the system-we just need some modest regulation.This would be more palatable.The private lower cost system will still operate-but will have rules to go by.
Defense spending IS NOT squandering money-it is for YOUR protection and that of our country.Yes-there can be ways to cut its costs(Do we need to pay several hundred for a potty seat-or a hammer)when these items can be bought at any hardware store for far less-and be just as usable.And remember defense spending provides JOBS for folks in the USA.Healthcare is a diffrent agenda.I am skeptical about Obamas healthcare plans just the same as his energy plan-folks need to know the darkside of both-may be more COSTLY than you think!!And YOU bear the burden!!Politicians are so good at "sugarcoating" their plans to make them sound good to you-but don't tell you the other side of their story.Yes-universal healthcare for all is a nice thing-but what is the cost?no answer from the politicians here.for the healthcare and energy -something just sounds too good to be true.BEWARE!!
Defense spending IS NOT squandering money-it is for YOUR protection and that of our country.Yes-there can be ways to cut its costs(Do we need to pay several hundred for a potty seat-or a hammer)when these items can be bought at any hardware store for far less-and be just as usable.And remember defense spending provides JOBS for folks in the USA.Healthcare is a diffrent agenda.I am skeptical about Obamas healthcare plans just the same as his energy plan-folks need to know the darkside of both-may be more COSTLY than you think!!And YOU bear the burden!!Politicians are so good at "sugarcoating" their plans to make them sound good to you-but don't tell you the other side of their story.Yes-universal healthcare for all is a nice thing-but what is the cost?no answer from the politicians here.for the healthcare and energy -something just sounds too good to be true.BEWARE!!
ronhic
Well-known member
I can't tell you how gratefull I am that I live here.
We have medicare, which for all its' faults gives a minimum standard of health care to all. Everyone pays for it - no exceptions and if you are on a higher income, you pay a little more than if you are on a lower income.
Should you take out private hospital cover for 'extras' such as glasses, osteopathy, dental etc before you turn 30, you pay the same rate when you are 70 as someone who will be 30 at that point in time. i.e Your premiums don't rise with your age if you lock in by 30yrs.
Add to that the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme...basically, on a HUGE range of prescription medicines the Australian Government covers the difference in price between the 'cost' and the dispensed price. It should be noted that the PBS and the Howard Governments refusal to alter it nearly cost us a free-trade agreement with the US...that should give you an idea how much it is worth) and to some degree, we have it better than the UK as the combined cost of Medicare (National Health Service in UK) and the PBS is cheaper for us than the NHS is in the UK.
There is no way on this earth I would move to the US with a health system that appears to be motivated by greed and very little by care.
We have medicare, which for all its' faults gives a minimum standard of health care to all. Everyone pays for it - no exceptions and if you are on a higher income, you pay a little more than if you are on a lower income.
Should you take out private hospital cover for 'extras' such as glasses, osteopathy, dental etc before you turn 30, you pay the same rate when you are 70 as someone who will be 30 at that point in time. i.e Your premiums don't rise with your age if you lock in by 30yrs.
Add to that the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme...basically, on a HUGE range of prescription medicines the Australian Government covers the difference in price between the 'cost' and the dispensed price. It should be noted that the PBS and the Howard Governments refusal to alter it nearly cost us a free-trade agreement with the US...that should give you an idea how much it is worth) and to some degree, we have it better than the UK as the combined cost of Medicare (National Health Service in UK) and the PBS is cheaper for us than the NHS is in the UK.
There is no way on this earth I would move to the US with a health system that appears to be motivated by greed and very little by care.
Only private insurances in the Netherlands. Some years ago a sort of national health insurance was stopped and the market is now for the private insurance companies. But... it's a regulated market. And a basic insurance is mandatory for everybody and it's affordable. You can get extra insurances for costs not covered by the standard insurance. I think it's a good working system.
To keep the costs of the health care in hand it's also important to set a maximum price on every medical treatment. It's the only way to get the focus back on the patient instead of on the money that can be earned.
To keep the costs of the health care in hand it's also important to set a maximum price on every medical treatment. It's the only way to get the focus back on the patient instead of on the money that can be earned.
Am the first to agree the United States requires some form of univeral health insurance. However having worked in healthcare for more years than one cares to remember, it is something one knows about.
Adding vastly more persons into the healthcare market via whatever insurance or anything else the government dreams up is NOT going to address the ever rising costs of heathcare in the United States. Worse we will have a totally new market for various doctors, drug companies, and so forth to get their hands on.
Medicare and Medicaid are run by the federal government and though the do a decent job, billons are wasted each year in fraud and waste. One popular past time in such places as Florida is for seniors to go various doctor visits for really no reason other than they want to get out of the house and have someone to talk to. Those visits are billed to Medicare.
It simply is NOT going be possible to vastly increase the number of insured persons on the government's tab without either staggeringly vast tax increases or some sort of scheme to keep costs under control. The first strikes fear in politicans, the later in citizens of the United States.
Keeping costs under control is going to mean someone is going to be told "no". It could be for a durg they saw advertised on televison and insist it is the ONLY thing for them, in spite of the fact a generic or other durg will do the same or better and cost less. Or, being told that their 95 y/o father cannot have a pacemaker inserted because the cost benefit ratio for someone at his stage of life is not on the cards.
Also consider that unless there is a mandatory opt in, young and otherwise healthy persons will NOT sign up if the cost is too great. Heck, some may not sign up unless it is free. That will leave a system signing up of persons who are ill, and or suffer from chronic diseases, and or anyone else whom is ill but cannot obtain insurance otherwise. That is no way to run any insurance scheme. It means outlays will vastly out run intake revenue. When or if that happens, where would this government scheme find the funds to make up the short fall.
Senator Kennedy is inserting a long term care provison into this bill. Has anyone priced long term care these days? It is no accident that many persons and or their familes spend down their assets so they can qualify for Medicare or Medicaid to pay for long term care.
Again, am all for universal health coverage, am just concerned about value for money, and where the funds are going to come from.
L.
Adding vastly more persons into the healthcare market via whatever insurance or anything else the government dreams up is NOT going to address the ever rising costs of heathcare in the United States. Worse we will have a totally new market for various doctors, drug companies, and so forth to get their hands on.
Medicare and Medicaid are run by the federal government and though the do a decent job, billons are wasted each year in fraud and waste. One popular past time in such places as Florida is for seniors to go various doctor visits for really no reason other than they want to get out of the house and have someone to talk to. Those visits are billed to Medicare.
It simply is NOT going be possible to vastly increase the number of insured persons on the government's tab without either staggeringly vast tax increases or some sort of scheme to keep costs under control. The first strikes fear in politicans, the later in citizens of the United States.
Keeping costs under control is going to mean someone is going to be told "no". It could be for a durg they saw advertised on televison and insist it is the ONLY thing for them, in spite of the fact a generic or other durg will do the same or better and cost less. Or, being told that their 95 y/o father cannot have a pacemaker inserted because the cost benefit ratio for someone at his stage of life is not on the cards.
Also consider that unless there is a mandatory opt in, young and otherwise healthy persons will NOT sign up if the cost is too great. Heck, some may not sign up unless it is free. That will leave a system signing up of persons who are ill, and or suffer from chronic diseases, and or anyone else whom is ill but cannot obtain insurance otherwise. That is no way to run any insurance scheme. It means outlays will vastly out run intake revenue. When or if that happens, where would this government scheme find the funds to make up the short fall.
Senator Kennedy is inserting a long term care provison into this bill. Has anyone priced long term care these days? It is no accident that many persons and or their familes spend down their assets so they can qualify for Medicare or Medicaid to pay for long term care.
Again, am all for universal health coverage, am just concerned about value for money, and where the funds are going to come from.
L.
animasinsulinpu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 275
Question for Lawrence
Did you ever get the insulin pump?.....Bill in Az.....
Did you ever get the insulin pump?.....Bill in Az.....
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
Massachusetts Healthcare
I would like to hear some non partisan feedback from the Massachusetts contingent here regarding the Healthcare plan implemented by Former Gov. Mitt Romney for the State of Massachusetts.
I don't know much about it, but a friend of mine who live in Springfield, Mass, says it is a good plan.
Any thoughts?
I would like to hear some non partisan feedback from the Massachusetts contingent here regarding the Healthcare plan implemented by Former Gov. Mitt Romney for the State of Massachusetts.
I don't know much about it, but a friend of mine who live in Springfield, Mass, says it is a good plan.
Any thoughts?
I'll take our Canadian system warts and all anyday over the schmozzle in the USA. We all shake our head in disbelief up here about how crappy it is in the US and how the anti-universals down there exagerrate and use scare tactics when ever the Canadian healthcare system is brought up.
Here's another close to home example just 3 weeks ago..
Our neighbor John across the road, retired, was feeling sick Saturday night and at about 3am Sunday morning asked his wife to take him to the hospital. They found he had had a heart attack and was having another, out with the paddles etc and into the operating room for an angioplasty, He was back pulling weeds from his driveway Tuesday afternoon. No charge, no paperwork other than signing a check-in and release document. No insurer to deal with just show your the hospital your health card and that's it.
Again not everything is free either.. I just had my annual physical at the doctors office and he sent me to a lab for bloodwork and a prostrate screening.. The prostrate cancer screening test cost me $30 out of pocket only.. the other blood tests were free.
Here's another close to home example just 3 weeks ago..
Our neighbor John across the road, retired, was feeling sick Saturday night and at about 3am Sunday morning asked his wife to take him to the hospital. They found he had had a heart attack and was having another, out with the paddles etc and into the operating room for an angioplasty, He was back pulling weeds from his driveway Tuesday afternoon. No charge, no paperwork other than signing a check-in and release document. No insurer to deal with just show your the hospital your health card and that's it.
Again not everything is free either.. I just had my annual physical at the doctors office and he sent me to a lab for bloodwork and a prostrate screening.. The prostrate cancer screening test cost me $30 out of pocket only.. the other blood tests were free.
It's all an insurance scam. Talk to and about doctors? Nope, let's talk insurance and how they will get rich on this scam on everyone's misery. The gov't has done a bang up job messing up the economy, social security, they can barely deliver a letter, and we want them to control the medical industry? In the words of the great Judy Tenuda, "Dream on, clingons".
