Return to the Home Decorating & Design Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Posted by marti8a
Sat, Jul 12, 14 at 18:50
|On a thread last year (I think), there was a discussion about health insurance and several people said they were finally able to get insurance. |
Looks like we are going to have to buy our own insurance in a few months, and I wondered what you thought about it.
Can you choose your own doctor?
Does it pay quickly?
|First you have to wait until the enrollment period for the ACA opens again. (Maybe Oct.?). |
You will get your choice of plans, different plans have different coverage and costs. Some states have more options then others.
Our son enrolled for this year, his coverage is by BlueCross/Blue Shield. He has had no problems.
|Our Blue Cross is still okay but my daughter's insurance has a very high deducible. $2,800.00 She will never reach this amount. Basically, she is paying for hospital coverage. And then we can hope she can choose a doctor and what hospital. |
Sorry, but Obama care has recreated a mess.
|>And then we can hope she can choose a doctor and what hospital. |
Don't understand that. I was able to see which hospitals and which doctors were in network before I signed up.
Me, I have no complaints. I live in FL where our idiot legislature, in their attempt to make Obamacare fail, took all the restrictions off price increases for the next two years. I had my own plan that I was happy with, but when they raised the premium $345 a month I had no choice but to go to Obamacare. (Thank you, FL legislature, for making sure we had the highest sign up rate in the country after CA.)
Yes, I pay more for prescriptions now, but when it comes to $17 more a month for a prescription vs $475 dollars a month to save that, I'm good.
All my doctors are willing participants--they don't say so to most of their patients, but there isn't a one of them who doesn't believe in a single payer system and they're glad to support this as a first step. And unfortunately, I have a lot of doctors, so it's a goodish sample size.
There are many different plan options and it is very hard to figure out which ones are the most worthwhile. It took me weeks to decide. I think in my county there were something like 68 plans.
ellendi, I certainly hope your daughter never reaches the deductible, but it doesn't take much these days. One trip to the ER will do that and then some.
|I had to help an older relative navigate selecting a plan. |
It is going to vary state by state. In my state, only one insurance company opted to provide any plans. They did not contract with all the hospitals in the state, which was a huge issue for many people, as they would be able to use their local hospital in an emergency, but would have to travel quite a distance for all other hospital services.
Things like which doctors you can choose from and how quickly payments will come really depends on which company you choose to buy your insurance from. You'd have to look up reviews on-line for the insurance company and your state to see what's what.
The very cheapest plans, the ones very low-income people can get basically for free, have huge deductibles. They are, quite frankly, emergency coverage only. You have to pay something like $3,000-5,000 out of pocket before the insurance kicks in.
But the very next tier offers pretty good, but not great, benefits for as little as $25/month, if you are low-income.
|First you have to wait until the enrollment period for the ACA opens again. (Maybe Oct.?). |
There's a special enrollment period if you meet certain criteria such as losing health coverage in the last 60 days. We still have insurance through dh's work, but if he changes jobs, we'll lose it.
|Ellendi - if your daughter never hits the deductible be thankful. I had cancer when I was 25. My husband had a ruptured appendix and a colon resection when he was 19. You never know what can happen even when you're young and healthy. If your daughter has no need to reach the deductible she will be truly blessed.|
|Right, have her keep her money in a Health Savings Account to cover the $2,800 deductible in case she needs to utilize it. If I were a young, healthy person I would've enrolled in this because I never needed to go to the doctor, mostly only yearly GYN exam, which many of these plans cover. |
BTW, one of my plans through work is high-deductible and it is $5K per person, $10K per family. My current PPO the premiums went up only a few dollars, but the out of pocket has gone up quite a bit. My prescription copays doubled--seriously, $50 a month for Synthroid?, our deductible went up, and our out-of-network coinsurance went up from 70/30 to 60/40. It is a "grandfathered" plan, so it does not have to cover a lot of the preventive care, but it must cover young adults to age 26, remove lifetime caps, and something else they cannot opt out.
DH's work offers high-deductible only, so it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil on plans.
When DH went to the doctor this week, they grilled him on our coverage because they said they do not participate in some of the exchange network insurance plans to make sure we were not on an exchange plan.
|$2800 is a high deductible? My friend who has insurance through his work has a $10,000 deductible. Not through Obama. He is single/no dependents.|
|My wife has a Blue Cross PPO. Her rates just went up 76% with no change in plan. I don't know if that was due to Obama or not. I have Medicare - I wish we all did.|
|It's been great for my daughter. She aged off of our insurance last year and was able to sign up for an exchange for only $88/month. It has a $5K deductible but allows for three doctor visits a year that cost less than $50 each. The next step up would have cost $40 more per month and the deductible was $2800 (I think). |
It's been a godsend for my son. He had cancer at 21 and lost his job (and insurance) a year later. Since then, he hasn't been able to find a job that offered insurance. He will need follow up care for the rest of his life and, before Obamacare, he couldn't find private insurance that would cover anything remotely related to cancer. Even without that, it was hard to find anyone that would cover him ... period ... and what was available was incredibly expensive.
With Obamacare insurers can no longer deny him coverage.
He got back on our plan until he turned 26, then he qualified for temporary insurance from the government for a while and it was a good, affordable plan. Once the deadlines kicked in though, he had to try to get insurance on his own again.
Although he is low income, through a glitch in the law and Indiana's spiteful politicians, he was ineligible for subsidies. He pays $313/month now which is a LOT for him ... but at least he's covered. His specialist is in-network too. Whew.
|It helped me a little. I was able to get basically the same PPO plan as I already had, but the premiums are about 30% cheaper per month. My co-pays for doctor visits increased from $30 to $45, but that's no big deal as I haven't been to a doctor for a while (knock on wood). In California, I was only offered one PPO plan, one hybrid plan and two HMO plans, so I would say the choice was limited.|
|Thank the good Lord my husband's company is still providing coverage. Many are not and have no choice but Obamacare. No idea of the coverage or pay out but the initial costs are much much higher than under private Insurance. The Government NEVER does anything more economically. My daughters really lost out thanks to the Obamacare mandates. They worked fast food hoping to save for college but were only allowed to work 21 hours a week or the small restaurant would be forced to provide their workers coverage. It is INSANE to think teens working for pocket money need Insurance but when you get the government involved all thought process go out the window. I am LOVING hearing the campaigns running on platforms that promise to sink this boon-doggle. From what I read the "poor" who had no insurance still are not signing up. They are making choices/gambling they won't have ANY medical cost so not going to waste the premiums when they could by ________ with that money. Much that sounds good in a chalk board on reality doesn't work. This is filed under that category. IMHO|
|I know several people working two or more part-time jobs or temping to make ends meet who are thrilled to get free coverage under Obamacare, or get coverage for under $50 a month. |
The "free" coverage is by using a tax credit. You get the most basic plans for that. Paying as little as $25/month gets you much better coverage.
The teens working fast food could get a second part-time job if they need more money. Employers have been keeping employees at part-time for decades to avoid giving them benefits--this is nothing new.
Yes, they fall into the category of part-time so their employers don't have to pay benefits--but that was the case before Obamacare as well.
| I have Medicare - I wish we all did. |
The Government NEVER does anything more economically.
|We are self employed and our policy renews around August 1. In August 2013 we stayed with the same $10,000 deductible plan we had for a long time as we were told it met ACA guidelines. At that time the premium for my husband and I and our son (ages 57, 56 and 23) was $7629.24 annually or $635.77 per month. |
Our policy now renews August 2014 and the company told us our existing plan was being discontinued and we needed to go into a different plan. The plan they assigned us is a $5000 deductible and the annual premium for us (now ages 58,57 and 24) is $17,776 or $1481 per month. I don't have the per person breakdown in front of me. Our son is getting married in August, which is a "life changing" event which allows a new policy to generate, so they'll get their own policy.
My husband and I can't change companies until the enrollment period later this fall. We can change within our existing company because they are discontinuing our current plan. The way I understand it, they have one other plan option that's less expensive (by $50/month) and anything else didn't meet ACA guidelines and thus would incur a tax penalty. I'm not sure I fully understand it.
My husband and I are healthy, normal weight (preferred category). Not diabetic and no high blood pressure. No history of anything major. But I guess that doesn't make any difference any more.
|Got a price quote for insurance for my husband and I... both self employed, don't qualify for subsidies. |
We were paying $92/month for a high deductible health plan w/ an $8K family deductible pre-Obamacare.
If we bought the cheapest possible Obamacare "approved" plan covering a bunch of stuff we don't need, we'd be paying $572/month for a plan with a $12,000 family deductible.
What a great improvement.
Needless to say, we said NO thanks. We kept our old plan even though it is not Obamacare compliant for this year... Technically, we would have to pay the tax since we don't have government approved insurance, but there were so many exemptions carved out that I think we can avoid it this year (exemption #14 - "You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance." My hardship was I don't want to pay almost $500 a month extra for worse coverage. (http://marketplace.cms.gov/getofficialresources/publications-and-articles/hardship-exemption.pdf)
Next year, we may join a Christian health sharing ministry to avoid this boondoggle.
Lots of stories in the news about doctors who won't take the plans. Just recent stories out of Miami and Cali about people having a hard time finding doctors. The reimbursement rates are VERY low and there is uncertainty about whether docs will get stuck w/ bills if people don't pay their premiums b/c Obamacare requires insurers to wait much longer before canceling coverage.
|My health insurance is part of my benefits package from my employer-I pay 5% or $40/mo. This year, for better benefits, the total premium is going DOWN almost 6%-this after years of constant increases. I don't know if that's a result of ACA, but I can't complain! |
My son has enrolled in the ACA but because of Oregon's huge failure in implementing it, has not yet gotten any coverage. His employer doesn't offer coverage. However the few people I have talked to who've managed to get thru the process seem to be having no problems.
|When dh leaves his current job, he will be working only on commission in a new field for him. I thought about getting a job at Home Depot or Lowes (I've just about got every aisle memorized since we've been doing this remodel) and happened to chat with a man in the paint department yesterday while my paint was shaking. I asked how he liked working there and he said it was great until about 6 months ago when they cut the hours of every salaried employee because of insurance. No one works over 25 hours a week. |
I was hoping to be able to make enough to pay our basic expenses and get insurance, but at 25 hours, I'd barely make enough to pay the utilities I think.
|Our DD is going to school and working p/t. She did have very affordable catastrophic insurance which was perfect for her but no longer permitted under the ACA. New insurance is more expensive and not at all what she wants but I guess it is her only option.|
| A family member has always had what I thought of as a high deductible ($10,000) and high co-pays. |
She has just tried not to ever go to the doctor.
Her deductible is now $12,000 a year and higher co-pays.
The cost for my family's insurance (through my DH's employer) increased a little more than it usually does each year, and the participating doctors and hospitals decreased by about one-third.
|I'm just going to pay the punishment fines-so much cheaper.|
|Deeby you probably don't even really have to pay their stupid fees. |
Check out Exemption #14
"You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance." I'm sure you had some kind of "hardship" you could claim!
Plus, there's pretty much no way for them to collect unless you have a tax refund so just adjust your withholding or estimates if you're self employed so you don't have a refund and simply don't pay it.
"Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law's drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics."
"The IRS remains very clearly limited in its ability to collect the penalty," Livingston says, "And the accumulation over time does not change those legal limitations."
|It's virtually impossible to form opinions or draw conclusions about any issue based on anecdotal information that lacks context.|
|This is a nifty site that allows you to check options: http://www.valuepenguin.com/ppaca/exchanges|
Here is a link that might be useful: Value Penguin
|"Just recent stories out of Miami and Cali about people having a hard time finding doctors. The reimbursement rates are VERY low and there is uncertainty about whether docs will get stuck w/ bills if people don't pay their premiums b/c Obamacare requires insurers to wait much longer before canceling coverage." |
I don't have any insight into CA, but I live in Miami and read the story in the Miami Herald that is referenced above. To be clear, the major issues cited in the article leading to doctors refusing to see ACA patients are 1) physicians' offices are not being cooperative based on non-factual beliefs related to their responsibility in accepting the plans and 2) there is concern that people enrolled in high-deductible plans will not pay their co pay or deductibles.
Thus, the truth of the story is that this is a newly implemented system, doctors and their staff are not yet familiar with how it will operate and whether or not some people will pay what is owed to the provider. So patients are experiencing inconvenience based on that, NOT on what the plans actually cover or do not, reimbursement levels etc.
Always good to stay with facts rather than inflammatory rhetoric, IMO.
|My employer provided health insurance is still pretty much the same other than the usual annual price increase. It's not cheap but it is in comparison to the cost of healthcare if you have much of anything wrong. Hopefully it will stay pretty much the same over time as I can continue with the plan when I retire which I hope to do in about five years.|
|Actually, the reimbursement levels ARE much lower for doctors in many insurance plans and many doctors are refusing to take those plans as a result of the lower reimbursement rates. See e.g. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/november/19/doctor-rates-marketplace-insurance-plans.aspx |
There also is concern regarding whether doctors will be hit with costs because Obamacare lengthens the time that an insurer must wait before canceling plans for nonpayment. See e.g. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2014/march/19/doctors-say-obamacare-rule-will-stick-them-with-unpaid-bills.aspx
|Thank you, Ann. |
With respect to the article above, I find it humorous that Kaiser Permanente, with the WORST reimbursement and most restricted care for its subscribers, is taking potshots at the Affordable Care Act plans.
Physicians are uncomfortable discussing their rates because of antitrust laws, and insurers say the information is proprietary. But information cobbled together from interviews suggests .....
Read the above as: "what follows is complete conjecture."
|I would also note that the first article predates the implementation of Obamacare entirely, and the second is dated in March, way before most people who are now in the plan joined up. |
You know, one of my neighbors used to go on and on about how all her doctors said they would NEVER take any of the Obamacare plans, but when I signed up I took a minute to check, mostly because this isn't a big city and one doesn't have a lot of choices for specialists, so I wanted to know to for future reference for myself. Every single one of them was in.
|What's sad about all of this is that Obama's name is attached to it, when the end result of the plan wasn't even his original vision. He gets the blame for changes that weren't what he wanted.|
|It's been great for us. I'm also self-employed, and before the ACA, we were stuck with policies that had exclusions out the wazoo and reimbursed almost nothing. It was 'keep them or go without coverage' since Hubby and DS couldn't qualify for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. |
When we bought new insurance under the ACA, I splurged for a Platinum level plan, with 90% coverage after a $5,000 family deductible.
Yes, it's kind of expensive. But $200 per month LESS than we were paying before for crappy coverage.
The loophole where employers cut everyone's hours so they don't have to provide benefits is a PITA though. I hope that one gets closed soon -- but know it won't. Honestly, I think single-payer is the way to go, and that health insurance should have nothing to do with our jobs.
|"Honestly, I think single-payer is the way to go, and that health insurance should have nothing to do with our jobs." |
YES!! I truly believe that we have the most bizarre and immoral system in place here in the US. To link getting health care to either having a job, being married to someone who has a job or living long enough to get into the entitlement program known as Medicare is simply insane.
While the ACA certainly has flaws, issues and problems I for one hope it is the first small step to moving toward a nation in which people know they can get help when they are sick or injured regardless of whether they have a job or not.
|"Honestly, I think single-payer is the way to go, and that health insurance should have nothing to do with our jobs." |
|Well, I know it has been a problem for little sisters of the poor. |
|If The Little Sisters of the Poor want government insurance money they can comply with government mandates. Or, they can run a truly charitable hospital if they like--- just not with my tax money. |
***edited out confusing pronouns
This post was edited by kswl on Sat, Jul 19, 14 at 12:18
|just not with my tax money. |
The little sisters of the poor get all of their money through donations. They help the poor elderly sick people throughout the world. OUR govt. was going to fine them per employee for not adhering to a mandate that went against basic religious beliefs.
Are you telling me that you are ok with that?
|What you don't mention is that they take Medicare and medicaid patients, receiving payments from our government in exchange for medical care. They operate multimillion dollar businesses in various locations across the USA with many secular employees. Why should they be exempt from the laws governing other businesses? |
Yes, I'm fine with it. :-)
|I agree , kswl. Anyone or any group or any corporation that accepts government dollars either as tax breaks or as part of a subsidy program or in any other way, should be required to follow the mandates set by the government. If those are objectionable, then don't accept the money. Very simple.|
|This argument will perpetuate. |
Nonetheless, there seems to be a workaround (and it's been offered, too, to the Little Sisters), and likely will apply to Hobby Lobby employees, who are impacted by the recent Supreme Court decision to exempt HL from the ACA contraception mandate. Here's an article that suggests this may actually better all-around for everyone. Allows those who oppose ACA mandates due to religious and moral beliefs a way to exercise that, while still protecting women's legal reproductive rights.
At the end of the day, though, it has nothing to do with morals and ethics, and everything to do with politics. So I hope the author is right... let everyone think they've won.
Here is a link that might be useful: Hobby Lobby decision
| I've been on Romneycare since its inception, and the only difference I can see is that now we HAVE to buy something that remains wholly unaffordable or we are penalized. At least the ACA also changed some bad practices, like the whole pre-existing condition thing. |
The nonsense about "you can keep your doctor" is just that, nonsense. That too is no different than it was before. If your doctor is on the plan you choose, then you keep your doctor. It was the same before: if your doctor was in your HMO, then you kept your doctor.
However, my premiums have gone up the same percentage every year since I got on Romneycare, same as it always was, and they actually skyrocketed this year due to Obamacare.
I think that, the problem with both of these plans is that they tackle the number of people covered, which wasn't the problem. People didn't have health insurance because it was too darn expensive and insurance companies are so scuzzy. I don't see the costs of health care/insurance changing any time soon. We cannot seem to get ahold of corporate green in this country, and until we do, we're just going to keep putting band-aids on things that don't work.
This post was edited by Tibbrix on Sat, Jul 19, 14 at 14:45
|My previous comments were not directed toward the ACA as a whole. This thread has been largely anecdotal, as was the nature of the original question. Personally, I would be in favor of a single-payer system if there were strict and clearly defined limitations regarding how genetic testing would be used to determine rates and coverage. |
My previous comments in my prior post were in reference to the more recent posts about charitable organizations, government funding, and mandates in the ACA that compromise the convictions of certain (primarily religious) organizations.
This post was edited by peony4 on Sat, Jul 19, 14 at 15:06
|My previous comments were not directed toward the ACA as a whole. This thread has been largely anecdotal, as was the nature of the original question. |
If you are talking about my original question, it was not anecdotal. I simply wanted to know if the ACA insurance had proven to be good, or a waste of money.
|Actually, the answers and information available have been largely anecdotal as the system is so new there aren't good published data from which to draw conclusions. I too assumed you were looking for anecdotal responses since none of us would be in a position to know more than our personal experience for the reason already stated.|
|Marti8a, yes, I meant anecdotal in terms of your inquiry about personal experiences with Obamacare. The term "anecdotal" isn't negative, but rather, by definition, refers personal accounts, which is what your original post seems to have sought and which this entire thread has solicited. I apologize if my comments were misunderstood. |
I don't have personal experience with ACA. My comments in my first post above referred to debates regarding ACA mandates and religious convictions that have arisen recently, most notably by the Hobby Lobby lawsuit referenced in the link I included above.
|I'm on medicare plus an insurance plan. What is offered for me on OC is far more than I pay monthly and there is no deductible or requirements for seeing another doctor. 100% coverage for anything. Few realize though that SS takes 100 or more a month (depending upon income) for medicare and you are on your own for the requirement of a separate health insurance. |
I beg silently for another way, but there is none. When I look at the options for families, guess I should be thankful, but insurance is taking 1/3 of my income. A family on OC options may not be far off. Also, medicare doctors are dropping like flies.
One question to those with pre-existing conditions. Even though they are accepted, is the insurance higher?
10 years ago I had a friend tell me that we are never going to dye of old age, dying will be due to health insurance. I let this slide and didn't respond, but now am beginning to see he may be right. Our care certainly isn't what it once was.
|Insurance offered through an employer is a way to save money by averages. DH and I have usually had group insurance, and so far, been the ones making the averages work...we USE the insurance little to none, vs. someone who has a chronic illness. |
If we ALL go single payer, there is no cushion for the more healthy, and we ALL pay more. That is what "insurance" is. The company charges you based on their risk. Mitigate the risk a bit with a pool, or group, and the risk, so the price, goes down. No pool, price goes up. But even if a LOT of "healthy, young people" sign up for INDIVIDUAL policies, there is still no "pool", and everyone is a risk to the insurance company individually, and must be priced as such.
|Technicolor, my DH and I and one student are on a commercial United Health insurance plan. Last year our premiums were $17,000 per year for the three of us, with a $3500 family deductible and a 20% responsibility until the $6500 out of pocket limit is reached. |
We buy the same coverage for our employees, who contribute $140 monthly, or $1680 of their roughly $7,000 cost. We are under no legal obligation to provide health insurance, but looking at how expensive it is, we feel we cannot do otherwise.
There is no reason health insurance should be attached or dependent upon one's job. That may have made sense when there was a shortage of workers and incentives were needed for hiring purposes (specifically after the Second World War), and when people stayed at a single company for their entire career. What we need in today's economy is portability of benefits, and/ or the insurance safety net that will enable people to leave a company and start their own businesses.
People do not choose whether to pay for the services of their fire department or police. Those services are part of a recognized civil contract, and an acknowledgement that when one person is in trouble or at risk individually, the community is too. Health insurance is no different, and everyone should have it. Period. The Swiss have a system that combines a mandated, basic insurance and "free market" add ons, and that is just one of the many ways others around the globe have financed universal health care--- and whose citizens are healthier than ours. People who think we have the best health care in the world are sadly mistaken. We have some of the finest teaching hospitals in the world, yes, but that does not translate into better care or health for our populace.....far from it.
|Technicolor, because your supplement insurance pays 100% with no deductable you are paying more then most retirees. |
If you really need this type of coverage keep it. If you are still pretty healthy you may want a policy where there is a deductable to meet.
My husband started getting Medicare 2 years ago (150.00/a bargain). The company he retired from has an exchange company (Extend Health, now Tower Watkin's OneExchange) that helps find supplemental insurance. Turns out that AARP, United Health, was a good fit for him. Yes, there are co-pays and a deductable but because he is healthy it still is hundreds less then we would be paying if we hadn't been helped make the decision by the exchange.
The one thing we did before his retirement was ask his doctors which policies worked for them.
I can not wait til I can be covered by Medicare. If I choose the same AARP policy that he has, we will be saving over $600.00 a month.
Look into using an exchange, our experience was positive.
Edited to add link.
Here is a link that might be useful: OneExchange info
This post was edited by maddielee on Sun, Jul 20, 14 at 11:47
|We have far better survial rates for most deadly cancers than anywhere in the world, Switzerland, for what is worth, is at the bottom in all its stats! Our life expectancy numbers are skewed by non health related deaths, ie guns, cars and ods. Single payer isfairer yes but will not improve the care we have here in the us and if true stats are used it could be argued it may indeed decrease our average life expectancy.|
Here is a link that might be useful: would prefer to be treated and screened in the us rather than any other country in the world
|Ah yes, government-run health care is fantastic. The VA is a shining example of how wonderful our government-run healthcare can be when you put unaccountable bureaucrats in charge. Not to mention Medicaid, which upwards of half of doctors in many areas won't accept because the repayment rates are so low. Or maybe the NHS is a great example, where patients are 45 percent more likely to die in hospitals than in the U.S.|
|Ditto to roarah and beagles.|
|BEagles is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is also wrong. The ACA is NOT government-run healthcare. The problem isn't government versus private. Does Beagle really think the private health care system is good???? It isn't. People lose their homes and life savings to one illness. |
Government and private industry have one thing in common: they're both comprised of people. Insurance companies aren't fraught with red tape and maddening rules and other nonsense? Of course they are.
this is a very complicated issue which involves a LOT of factors. Anyone think Beagles is going to refuse Medicare when the time comes?
|People will ALWAYS lose their life savings to illness. SOMEBODY has to pay for this care......|
|Roarah, if you review the chart you shared, as well as the Lancet article from which is was obtained, Switzerland is at the bottom simply because data on 3 of the 4 cancers were not reported by the country (that's what the N/A refers to on the chart).|
|Thank you peony, you saved me the trouble of pointing that out. |
With respect to the article in the Guardian, the professor's statistics have not been published beyond some highlights designed to grab headlines . The methodology has not been peer reviewed; the statistics from each country are not gathered or reported in the same way, making the comparisons a bit like apples to elephants. In the US we do not even use the same diagnosis code system that the rest of the world uses--- and the raw data on patient conditions is diagnosis codes. Suffice it to say that his assertions are far from being proven on their own merits without even raising the question. Of frequency of hospitalizations. Added to the fact that the other countries in his comparison are not even named....
|Thank you, peony and kswl.|
|For me Obamacare was the straw that broke the camel's back. I (and several hundred of my co-workers) have been laid off. During my last year (I was there 14 years) our hours were cut by one-third so the employer could avoid providing us coverage. The guy who owns this business (it is privately held) is either going to sell it or simply cease operations and retire to Florida with his BILLIONS and leave his former employees twisting in the wind. Obamacare is the perfect excuse he needed to avoid blame while he abandons us. The employees who still have a job there now know the ship is sinking and are preparing to leave. |
I was hoping this job would last long enough to get me to my retirement in 6 years. Now I have nothing. Maybe nothing means I can now qualify for free health insurance, but I would've rather kept my job.
| The ACA is NOT government-run healthcare |
I did not say the ACA was government run health care (although the gov has certainly managed to screw up the health care even more w/ the ACA). I was speaking to the problems of single payer systems.
When the time comes for me in 30 years, Medicare may already be bankrupt or may have bankrupted the government. I don't think anyone can deny that there are some significant financial problems w/ Medicare.
Personally, I would strongly prefer for Medicare and Social Security to be privatized so I wasn't forced to pay into or participate in either of these programs. That's not the system we have so I have no choice but to live in the world we live in. If the trends in this country continue in the direction we seem to be going, I very much doubt we will still be in the United States when we retire anyway...
The private insurance system has been messed up for a LONG time because of over-regulation. We need fundamental changes and I personally believe people need to bear more of the costs of their own routine care while insurance should cover catastrophic situations and emergencies only (pretty much the opposite direction of where we've gone). I like Ben Carson's proposals the best of any I have heard for reforming the healthcare system.
I don't love insurance companies but I like the government involvement even less. The government has not ever done anything better or more cheaply than the private market. Nothing. Just look at the VA! And people in countries with socialized medicine who have the money buy private insurance supplements anyway. I would take an insurance company over health care run by government bureaucrats any day.
Not to mention, while people "in general" did not like private healthcare before the ACA, there was a different response when people were asked about their own health care situation. A full 80 percent of people responded to that question that they were happy with what they had. So insurance companies couldn't have been that terrible.
There are plenty of other statistics on problems with the NHS, I just grabbed the very first file I googled. A quick google search will turn up much more information on negative patient outcomes and financial troubles.
The reality is that healthcare is very expensive. It would be lovely to provide top quality healthcare to everyone and make sure everyone has the treatment they need for everything. It is also not realistic to do this.
Government-run insurance is just about the worst possible approach to this problem because government is not accountable to the people in any real sense, esp. since government entitlement programs are pretty much never rolled back no matter how ineffective they are.
|Why didn' t Switzerland summit its data peony and kswl? Probally because they are not great results and they are last out of all the countries reported in their Breast cancer stats. The Forbes article linked below has many more links that are helpful in honestly understanding why we received low longevity stats and how the results are not indicitive to our true health care system.|
Here is a link that might be useful: myth about life sxpectancy, with great study links
|"Probally because they are not great results and they are last out of all the countries reported in their Breast cancer stats." |
Unfortunately this statement is an example of how many people draw conclusions.
|Kswl, what have you used to conclude that other nations provide better health care? For all you have those posted is all speculative.|
|Just wanted to point out the link provided by roarah casting shade on Switzerland is 6yrs old.|
|Roarah, please look carefully at the chart that you are linking. Switzerland is situated at the bottom of the list, yes. But its reported figure for breast cancer survivor rates is not the lowest. According to the figures on the chart, the lowest rate for breast cancer survival was reported by Ireland (69.6%). |
Why didn't Switzerland submit full results like the rest of the country? I don't know. I only reviewed the chart you provided and the Lancet article from which it was retrieved. I'm not making statements comparing U.S. healthcare vs that in other countries. I have anecdotal experience with healthcare when I lived in Europe and traveled to Asia, but not enough to form an opinion. I'd need to conduct much more research to be able to adequately discuss this.
Moreover, I have not read enough research or had enough personal experience with the ACA to have an informed opinion about its merits and pitfalls, either. But I do recognize that our nation's healthcare system is so complex--and we're not even taking into account the roots of many of our healthcare problems. We tend to look at personal and public health in very fragmented ways. And grabbing the first link we find in a google search makes our perspective even more misaligned.
This discussion has been helpful to me to learn about anecdotal experiences of others. However, I find that when people begin discussing any such complex issue, those with the strongest opinions are often the least informed.
|Here is another chart from Cancer.org. The available data years do not match up exactly among countries but the U.S. is significantly higher in overall survival than every other country based on the data that is available. |
From 1996- 2006, cancer survival in the U.S. was 65.9 percent overall. By comparison, survival rates were 46.2 percent from 1995-1999 in England and 55 percent from 1995-1999 in Switzerland. Other than stomach cancer, there was not a single type of cancer in which Switzerland had a better survival rate than the U.S.
I really doubt things have changed that much in recent years that Switzerland would now somehow be better than the U.S.
|For those who wish to toss out health statistics, one of the best sources is the World Health Organization. You can investigate by country, region, etc. Glancing quickly, life expectancies in France, Switzerland, and Canada are higher than ours here in the US whether you look at expectancy from birth, from age 60, or healthy life expectancy. The differences, however, are only 2-3 years. We are better for high blood pressure, but the others far surpass us for low blood glucose and obesity levels (us=30.2 % for males and 33.2% for females. France=16.8% for males and 14.6% for females. Switzerland was comparable to France and Canada was in the 20% range). Per capita Expenditures for health care are several thousands lower in France and Canada and higher in Switzerland. |
I am another taxpayer for universal health care.
|I am actually hopeful that ACA will work, everyone should have equal access to health care, I only object to the idea that single payer systems work. They also have numerous flaws. No system is perfect nor is ours all bad.|
|With respect to statistics: |
According to the CIA World Factbook, published every year, the United States is 55th among all nations in infant survival during the first year of life. Joining virtually all Western European countries (including Switzerland) ahead of us are countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Belarus, Israel, Taiwan, Cuba, French Polynesia and Guam.
This measure is a generally accepted indicator of a population's level of healthcare. According to the CIA.
|Roarah, what is your definition of "work" in your statement that you object to the idea that single payer systems work? Just curious since it appears that, in many countries, they work just fine and often less expensively. I probably won't be back since this thread was sort of hijacked and it is unlikely that anyone will change anyone else's mind, but there does appear to be strong evidence against that statement. I do agree no system is perfect, but I would prefer to err on the side of taking care of our poorest and weakest citizens as well as our working poor by providing them with health care. In the long run, we all benefit. JMHO.|
|Cyn, I said I am hopeful that the ACA will work for I too wish for all to have health coverage but even though I wish to take care of the poorer and weaker citizens I still believe in a free market system with many choices and different options. In most single payer systems there is much less screening and early detection for numerous diseases in addition to very lengthy wait times. My husband is English and I have had the misfortune of experiencing and paying, via very high taxes, for a single payer system. Let' s just say the Uk presently prides itself by saying that their average wait time for an approved procedure is 4.5 to 8months. Again, I am not againt the ACA. It can hopefully maintain the best of what is right with our present care while fixing what was wrong, too many going without coverage. I am particularly happy that more were added to medicaid. Our definition of what qualifies for poverty is absurd and I am so grateful that the cut offs were broadened.|
This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:11
|Roarah, interesting about your experience with the British system. I have a British (now US citizen) friend, married to a physician (trained in the UK and US, now a US citizen). Their anecdotal accounts and comparisons of the two systems are always an eye opener. They send their family medications (easily obtainable and common meds for us here in the U.S.) which their doctors either will not or cannot prescribe. Having lived in two European counties, we also had the opportunity of seeing the system up close, not one we envied. |
I'm not optimistic about the future of health care in our country. We will become single payer, it is just a matter of time, and with that will come higher costs, longer waits for appts and surgical procedure, and inferior care. I believe we'll see these things once the ACA is fully implemented and it will only deteriorate with single payer.
I wish our representatives had worked harder to find a way of covering pre-existing illnesses and those unable to afford health care, without sacrificing the many advantages a free market system provides.
|There are no "free market advantages" unless you are invested in insurance company stock, lol. |
With respect to long waits, there is no reason a person cannot wait several months for a screening colonoscopy that occur since every several years. Having expensive CT and MRI scanners on every corner, as ubiquitous as quickie marts, allows us to have that test today but drives UP the cost per person. Why? Since there aren't enough patients to use each machine enough to pay for it over a longer time, each patient (or insurance) is charged more per use. And as the manufacturers crank out new and improved CT and MRI and PET scanners, each hospital or stand alone center has to keep up with their own new machine to compete for those same patients....the scanners are never paid for. They have a long life and are sold to other countries that cannot afford the "best." Which was our best the year before. Fewer machines servicing more people is more cost efficient. But heaven forbid someone has to wait a couple of weeks for a non urgent test.
Okay, off the soapbox, whoever said that minds are not changed by these discussions is absolutely correct. However, I will say what I have always said to my children: everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts.
This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:23
|My mil waited one year for a mastectomy, not a screening Kswl. My fil waited 9 months for cataract surgery, not for non urgent tests...They have never had colonoscopies for they are only covered after70 if your smear is positive for blood, which is why their mortality rates for colon cancer are so high.|
This post was edited by roarah on Mon, Jul 21, 14 at 22:22
|Personally, I believe there will never be universal healthcare in the US because collectively, we don't want everyone to have access to quality healthcare. |
We want those who have money to have health. We want those who live in poverty to continue to live as they do. Why? Because it means less competition and more people who will do the jobs others aren't willing to do. Those in the middle are teetering, and could go in either direction, especially when there is a health crisis.
My mother marches at a weekly rally, against whatever war is going on. During one of her marches, she met a woman (undocumented worker) who is blind due to cataracts. My mother's peace and justice group found a surgeon to do the operation pro bono, but no hospital was willing to foot the bill. So, the woman continues on in life, blind, because of lack of papers-- the money kind and those granting her rights in the US.
But who cares, right? Who cares. Too bad for her, but that's life. Life is about survival, and getting ahead. No one promised that life would be fair, after all.
On a slightly different note, one of my biggest complaints about insurance is that we are paying for a service that inherently does not want to provide for us. There is a conflict of interest from the outset. It makes no sense.
Insurance, a for-profit business, let's not forget, is expensive. So is medical care. Everyone likes to talk about government waste, but what about waste in the medical arena? What about the high cost of everything? Again, the costs come from one motivation: MONEY. Just take a look at the pharm industry . . .this is all about corporations and the never-ending drive for hoarding money. It's really disgusting, when you think about it. The hoarding of money.
|Anele, your mother represents a reverence for humanity that does not exist in our healthcare system.|
|Bowel cancers are the second most common cause of cancer deaths in both the United a States and the U.K. both historically and as late as last year. |
American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.
|Yes kswl, that is why early dection is so important. We have five year survival rates of about 60% the Uk is under 45%.|
Here is a link that might be useful: Britain trails in cancer survial rates, June 2014
|We want those who have money to have health. We want those who live in poverty to continue to live as they do. |
Yes, that's really the heart of it, isn't it?
|Oh well, it looks like all you "I've got mine--get away from me" folks can be happy now, given the court decision today.|
|It is true that mileage varies! I am from England and my family and DH's family are still there. They all receive excellent medical care and no-one that we know has ever had to wait unduly for that care. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer over 5 years ago and had a mastectomy and radiation very soon after diagnosis. Not only was her treatment excellent but a car or ambulance was sent to her home to take her to all her many appointments and she received in-home nursing care. She has never personally paid a penny in to the system! Paying for her treatment never crossed her mind and in my opinion nor should it. |
I have never been able to find a single Brit who would trade our US health system for theirs! Of course the British system is not perfect but there is much to admire in it. I believe the Danes may have the most successful system but I have little faith that we will learn from the best practices of other nations when we are so busy resisting change and looking longingly backwards.
|I am happy for your family's positive outcomes Sis3. For what it is worth my mil was under the approved age for mammograms when she found her lump, so the year was from finding the lump to the surgery with a few steps used inbetween and she now has private insurance and travels to the US for care. When looking at every developed country's approval ratings for health care we all seem to have those who love their systems and those who do not. That, and all systems are expensive all though costs vary and moneies are collected by different means (high taxes or high fees) is the only universality I think there truly is in all our systems.|
|On wait times in the US, and yes, this is (a long and frustrated rant, as well as) more anecdotal evidence: |
My BFF had a fall in April. Although x-rays pointed up something that was clearly not normal she was unable to get an MRI scheduled until the beginning of June.
She has an unstable spine, with fractures dangerously encroaching on her spinal cord, making her very susceptible to an injury that would cause paralysis from the waist down. She has had two opinions, with differing ideas as to cause and treatment plan. One thing everyone agrees on is that she needs surgery.
The large teaching hospital that has the most success with these kinds of surgeries will not schedule the procedure until she has seen a bone and mineral specialist. The soonest appointment is in October.
In the meantime, additional tests show that she may have cancer of an undiscovered primary organ. It is possible that it has already metastasized to at least one other area, possibly two.
The oncologist feels she needs to have an open tissue biopsy of her spine at the point where the original (in April) x-rays showed an abnormality ... but no one will do this until she has the spinal surgery.
So there she is, off work, wearing a back brace, unable to lift more than 5 lbs or drive, worrying whether one wrong move will cause her to be paralyzed, or whether cancer is eating away at her.
Her private insurance company will not approve a third opinion that would allow her to try another teaching hospital that might do the biopsy and surgery sooner.
Her only options are: 1. Have the procedures done at the local podunk hospital, where they have never attempted this procedure before. 2. Wait for the large teaching hospital to fit her into their specialist schedule, then fit her into the surgery schedule. 3. Take on the gargantuan expense of self pay at a third hospital.
THIS is the best health care in the world? You gotta be kidding me.
|Endeevee, the NPAF was of great assistance to a friend of mine who was jumping hoops to get on a trail drug. Not sure if they can help your friend but I hope they can. Below is their website with a number to call with questions. I hope your friend finds relief and treatment soon.|
Here is a link that might be useful: patient advocacy organization, NPAF
|Thank you so much, Roarah! I've sent the link to my friend and will talk to her about it tonight!|
|Sis, very interesting about England. |
My American friend moved to Canada w/her European husband. She said if she ever had a serious medical issue, she'd come back to the US. Sadly, she had a very aggressive form of breast cancer (one of the hardest types to treat). She got treated in Canada, and had a fantastic (well, given that it was cancer) experience. Better, she said, than her care she'd ever had in the US. Thankfully, she is doing very well now.
Just found out my mom's friend has a "shadow" that doctors are concerned may be cancer. Her insurance is making her wait 6 months to find out what it is. She's a former nurse, too, so she knows how to navigate the system (and is attempting to fight it). So crazy.
|Edeevee, my friend went through a similar experience when she desperately needed a hysterectomy. She had to wait and wait before the ins. co. would okay it. She went to the ER twice and the ins. co. still said "not now," while the doctors were ready to cut. |
She finally had the surgery last week and it ended up being complicated.
As for our insurance, all I know is it's just as expensive as it was before we made the switch. We chose a large deductible but still, I'm afraid to get sick.
Over the years we've had to switch insurance companies for whatever reason, and all of them accepted our pre-existing conditions. So our family hasn't benefited from anything.
I think Obama meant well, but his insurance plan is a massive failure because it seemed a bit rushed & definitely not thought out well...to help his "legacy." But that's another topic which I don't want to get into. I just hope the next POTUS comes in and fixes it. LOL
|oakley, My friend is going to contact roarah's patient advocacy line today. She tried last night but my stupid fat fingers typed one number wrong on my phone and she ended up calling a HOT BODIES porn site. Oh well. Laughter is good medicine, right? |
As far as Obamacare, it's worked out well for my kids and hasn't made any difference at all for my husband and me. I keep hearing horror stories on the Internet but I've yet to talk to anyone I know personally who has been negatively impacted.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it does make me wonder if these cases aren't anomalies? Especially because I live in a very conservative area of the country and many of my friends are rabidly anti-Obama. I feel certain they would have been shouting it from the rooftops if they'd been personally injured by the program.
I only have my own experience to go by but it seems to me that we faced a tremendous amount of problems with healthcare in this country before Obamacare was implemented. (Don't get me started on what my kid went through seven years ago.)
While the ACA certainly hasn't corrected everything, for my friends and family it has been a step in the right direction. YMMV.
|This is slightly OT, but this article just shows how insurance can be subject to User Error. The ACA definitely has problems (in part due to changes made that were not in the original plan), but this is an HMO matter: |
" Some of the doctors said they wouldn't see her because she was too far along in her pregnancy ï¿½" about 30 weeks. A few practices did take the HMO insurance, but they operated as a rotating clinic and couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor every time. Rachel wanted to establish a relationship with her obstetrician."
Yes, that's true. MANY OBs will not take a patient that far along for liability reasons. And with every single practice I've gone to, minus the one where there was a solo practitioner (who missed most of the birth anyway!), one always rotates to a degree. It's a very common practice.
It's great that they used a midwife (I did 4 times), but had there been any complications, the $400 a month would have been absolutely a drop in the bucket compared to the expense, esp. because while pregnant, it covers 2 people. They likely could have used a midwife under the HMO-- I did.
Here is a link that might be useful: Family Opts Out of ACA
|I don't begrudge anyone access to the healthcare they need. |
I'd love for everyone to have excellent healthcare. And rides back and forth to appointments would be especially helpful in the case of my mom, since either my sister or I have to take days off work to drive her to her appointments.
Great Britain's healthcare sounds wonderful.
But it isn't free.
From The Guardian
Wednesday 16 July 2014 13.05 EDT
"Voters remain wedded to Britain's taxpayer-funded model of healthcare even as NHS leaders question its sustainability, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. Analysis by NHS England and outside experts points to a large funding gap that could reach Â£30bn by the end of the decade, and last month 71 leading lights of the health service wrote to the Guardian to warn politicians that failure to level with the public about the black hole before polling day would jeopardise the service's future."
|Edeevee - I am appalled at what your friend has gone through! I can honestly say, I have never had a friend or family go through that kind of wait! My MIL recently went through treatment for lymphoma and even though she is on medicare/supplemental - she did not have a long waiting period, did not have to have a second opinion, in fact she had her primary biopsies done within days - with the hospital even doing them early morning CHRISTMAS EVE. I feel almost naive because my family has always been so fortunate with insurance. My father worked for Union Carbide most of his career years and growing up we had medical/dental/vision, etc. As a married couple, my husband and I have had BC/BS for at least 30 years - other than a brief period when we switched to Cigna (because of policy changes). I almost feel ashamed at the good coverage we have had when others have so much trouble. I know it is not my fault, but I agree that EVERYONE should have medical care and good coverage. Because of my employer, we've always carried insurance through my work rather than my husband's. I'm a state/federal employee. After reading this thread, I am very thankful! |
Edeevee, please keep us posted on your friend. I hope she gets help and can be quickly treated.
|Not sure how I stumbled on this thread, but now I'll tell you some experiences in the former USSR and the current Russia. I lived there for many years in the late 80's and 90's, married to a rather famous doctor. Needless to say, it was "top of the line" for me all the time. It was also "top of the line" for the citizens there. What my former husband said seemed to be true: experimental things like transplants or cardiac treatment were much better in the US, but for usual medical situations, of course it was better in the USSR because you could get it for free. |
Fast forward: my (American) son has been employed in St. Petersburg for seven years. They had a baby a few years ago. They paid a thousand dollars for a suite so he could be with her, and they were there for seven days. Not because of any complications, but because that is standard--so they can monitor the child and the mother daily. Then--here's the beauty part--
for no extra money, on the first day home, their pediatrician came to the house. Weighed the baby, weighed the diapers, created a log that my daughter in law had to maintain for them--how many feedings, how many wet diapers, how many dirty diapers. Second day, an RN came by to monitor the child. Third day, pediatrican back. Then, after that, they rotated every few days until everyone was content with the baby's progress. If the baby had a cold or a fever, you called a phone number and an ambulance would come with a pediatric team to the apartment--and if they could solve the problem there, they would. If the situation (might have) required hospitalization, they were ready to carry the child back to a hospital. All free.
Well, not free--their paychecks reflect these kinds of services to everyone in the country. The fact that the Russians drink themselves into an early grave is another issue that brings down their stats, of course. But availability of routine care is unbelievable compared to the US. Obamacare is at least a step in the right direction. (My kids spend a lot of time in the US--and were uninsured here until ACA provided them with policies they could afford.)
Count me in as someone who thinks the government does lots of things very well--I'm happily collecting my Social Security every month. Batabing--in that account second Wednesday of every month like book....
|What court decision, writers block?|
|There were several conflicting decisions in different courts that day, marti8a, but the one I was referring to was the federal court decision that subsidies were illegal in states which hadn't set up their own exchanges. |
So under that decision, one of my neighbors, a widow who works at Home Depot, at the local community college, and also as a yoga teacher but who makes average of about $8.50 an hour for all of these, and who was thrilled to be able to afford health insurance for the first time since she got married, will have to pay back the subsidy that made it affordable for her, if the ruling holds.
It will be especially hard for her since she's spent quite a bit of the little cash she has getting things like new teeth to replace the ones her husband knocked out, help with the partial deafness ditto, and so on now that she had insurance to cover some of those costs. I don't see how she can possibly manage if she has to return all the subsidy money, too.
|I have a friend who frequently moaned and complained about Obamacare and how it should be repealed. In my opinion it has no small share of problems but at least it's a move to try to make coverage available to more people. |
I asked this person what he planned to do for health insurance when he retired (pre-medicare age) when both he and his wife have preexisting conditions. I explained to this ignorant soul who had always had insurance through his employer that prior to Obamacare he and his wife would likely be unable to get coverage and/or the coverage would exclude the preexisting conditions for some period of time and/or the price would be exorbitant.
Last time I saw him he was espousing the virtues of Obamacare as he had post-retirement coverage that he would not otherwise have been able to get it.
|I have an acquaintance (DH's friend) who rants and raves about "Obamacare." He said he didn't sign up because it was too expensive - he has a wife and two kids. I happen to know how much money they make so I looked it up. After the subsidy, the annual premium would be $600, plus a max out of pocket of $4500 for a silver plan. That equals $425 per month for the entire family to have medical coverage. Assuming they even need the max out of pocket (just premium is $50/mo!) |
Too much but of course they both have late model cars and the kids have all the latest electronic gadgets on the market.
Here's the kicker: He recently was in the hospital for a week with Guillain-BarrÃ© syndrome. Total cost was $90,000! So now they are having a benefit for him and I was asked to help organize and donate. Well okay . . .
|My youngest has a pre-existing condition and lives in a state where there is no doctor trained in the treatment my son is getting now. He must go out of state for care. We would actually like for him to continue with his specialist in NYC, who has been monitoring his condition for several years now. My fear is, when he goes off our insurance in two months, that he'll be able to get insurance but it will be useless as it won't pay for his out-of-state/out-of-network needs. Anybody have any advice or suggestions?|
|> My fear is, when he goes off our insurance in two months, that he'll be able to get insurance but it will be useless as it won't pay for his out-of-state/out-of-network needs |
Networks are not restricted to a single state. When you are looking a plans you can check to see which facilities in other states are in-network and when you find a plan that seems to suit, just call the specialist's office and ask the if they take xxx insurance. I had blue cross before and I have a blue cross plan now, and there's not much difference in physicians and facilities, just in what is covered (and that's my decision--I was looking for something with a higher deductible and lower premium).
I would say that if your insurer also offers obamacare plans that your son would be qualify for, the odds are fairly good that his current doctor and facilities would be on it. However, things like prescription coverage might be very different from what he has now. But for younger people there are a lot of gold plans at reasonable prices. I'm in my 50's so that makes a difference in what's available and what it costs.
|Canadian here - just wanted to point out our system is actually a lot more economical than yours. We paid $4500 per person in 2011, or 11.9% of our GDP. You spent almost double at $8500 per person or 17.7% of GDP. So in this case, yes, the government is a LOT more cost effective. |
Here are the things that are more expensive:
1. Administration - about 25% of your cost! which is absolutely sky high compared to other OECD countries. Those billing wings in your hospitals with hundreds of clerks are mere rooms in ours with like five clerks.
2. Increased costs - your doctors get paid more, your drugs cost more, and your medical equipment costs more as well. Your government has the best leverage, so Medicaid actually pays less for the same person, drug or service than your insurer. We have the Medicaid advantage in that way for our whole country.
3. You get more care - you get more procedures and more diagnostics, you have more surgeries. If you have a heart attack you are much more likely to get open heart surgery in the States - but your life expectancy afterwards is the same in both countries. I just had to wait a year for an MRI that I cancelled. I didn't really need it and I didn't get it in the end. Frustrating at the time but that's the system actually working for the taxpayer instead of the selfish patient.
Love, your friendly neighbourhood epidemiology student in the frozen North.
|I worked in a hospital in the US for over 30 years. Do you know who pays for medical care in the US for an uninsured patient? You do, of course, through the higher cost of medical care for insured patients. Why was your CT bill $8k? Because the last three patients did not have insurance and did not pay their bill. Universal healthcare is the only way to fix this mess. If you can afford to exempt yourself from health insurance and pay the fine, you can also pay for the emergency care from a car accident. There will always be people that try to get away with not following the law, feeling themselves above the mandates. The shame is on them.|
|If you can afford to exempt yourself from health insurance and pay the fine, you can also pay for the emergency care from a car accident. |
I agree! I don't understand people who say that they would rather pay the fine. Paying the fine won't give them health insurance!
|Loving my ACA insurance!! My Dr thinks a single pay option is the way to go. |
I am paying about $50. More per month for much better coverage.
|"I agree! I don't understand people who say that they would rather pay the fine. Paying the fine won't give them health insurance!" |
That's because they would rather just use the hospital emergency room and not pay their bills----then cry that they were bankrupted by medical costs. It's fraudulent.
|amw, You might not ever see this but, just in case ... My son also sees a specialist out of state. Right now, due to a glitch in the system, he doesn't qualify for subsidized care so we purchased a plan through our regular agent. Once the glitch gets fixed I don't know what we'll do as our state has limited subsidized plans available and none of them cover his doctor. Maybe we'll just keep helping him pay for the current plan. It's $313/mo including dental but the peace of mind may be worth it.|
|thanks so much, edeevee, that's interesting to know.|
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.
If you are a member, please log in.
If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Home Decorating & Design Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you
will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your
post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in
order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit
our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we
will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here