Obamacare is corporatism. People are being forced by the state to purchase a service through a middle man. It is increasing dependance on insurance to receive medical care which will inevitably increase the cost of it as it already has increased leading up to it. The idea of insurance is to protect yourself from rare and catastrophic events, this idea has been perverted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
You can't say ObamaCare is a disaster 2 weeks into it. It might be, but you need time to see how it plays out. You won't know for sure until around 5 months into it.
You can't say ObamaCare is a disaster 2 weeks into it. It might be, but you need time to see how it plays out. You won't know for sure until around 5 months into it.
Two weeks?
Are you only counting when the website is up?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All the kids who played the blues
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
Well, indeed. Except that my personal experience with our socialised healthcare system in the last year or so is that, for a not-at-all-time-critical case, my wait for a specialist was a few weeks, and for a somewhat more urgent case, my wait time for ED was on the order of how quickly they could get the wheelchair from the hospital entrance to ED.
The difference being that you don't have 300m people living in your country.
when MA put in their insurance for all thing the city of boston has more doctors per 1000 people than any other city in the US. they also have some of the worst wait times to see a doctor.
which means that people aren't getting the appointments they need in time.
If there's more need for doctors than is being met, that seems like an opportunity to employ more doctors.
But think about this for a moment. If, when everyone has access to healthcare, the demand for doctors goes up, that means the need for that amount of healthcare is there. Taking access away until the usage drops just means you're cutting people off from the healthcare they need. That's not fixing the problem, unless you prefer fewer people getting care with shorter wait times to everyone getting the care they need even if they have to wait a little longer for non-urgent problems.
I'm not saying that the wait times you cited above didn't happen - I'm quite happy to entertain the possibility - but I suspect that my experiences are closer to the norm and your examples to being outliers, rather than the other way round.
it is the norm in canada and has been for a while now depending on the provence.
An average of a year to see a specialist and an average of 8 hour wait in ED? That does sound pretty bad. I did a quick google for stats for us, didn't see anything on specialists, but from this year, "93 percent of patients were treated, admitted, and discharged from an emergency department within 6 hours".
even if you have the government running it costs will not go down. it is the same reason that Governments in europe are trying to cut back. the government paying for it hasn't done anything to offset the rising costs.
Rising costs are a problem for all health systems at the moment. It's not because they're insurance-based, socialised, cash-shop, etc. But your medical outcomes are about equal to those of nations with socialised healthcare, and you're paying a lot more per capita - and your already-inflated costs will still go up.
the reason that american medicine is expensive is because we do most of the RND for it. which means a lot of upfront costs. most of the drug makers are here in the US.
Are you asserting that the reason for high medical costs in the US is that you do lots of R&D, and that that cost is passed directly on to customers? And not, for example, the rampant price distortion by hospitals and insurance companies, nor the paperwork and malpractice insurance costs you mentioned earlier? I would like to see something to back that up.
You can't say ObamaCare is a disaster 2 weeks into it. It might be, but you need time to see how it plays out. You won't know for sure until around 5 months into it.
Two weeks?
Are you only counting when the website is up?
Hey, if Congress are spending months impotently trying to repeal it, that's time that they're not casting their baleful glare on anything else. I'd call that a positive.
Obamacare cost me my job last year because they simply didn't want to pay for it, and now my current employer is ending all employee benefits at the end of 2013. After I'd say 20 attempts at getting on the exchange the insurance policies they want to sell me are 30-35% higher then what I was paying into my employer coverage. Its anything but affordable.
Obamacare cost me my job last year because they simply didn't want to pay for it, and now my current employer is ending all employee benefits at the end of 2013. After I'd say 20 attempts at getting on the exchange the insurance policies they want to sell me are 30-35% higher then what I was paying into my employer coverage. Its anything but affordable.
But they are robust plans that cover all sorts of things you don't need.
Don't you see the value in that?
I am a 41 year old single male, what if I don't have Maternity care and BAM, I get a sudden case of Immaculate Conception?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All the kids who played the blues
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
If there's more need for doctors than is being met, that seems like an opportunity to employ more doctors.
The problem with this thinking is there is more to it then just demand. Some kid spends a decade of his life learning to be a doctor spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on schooling, then gets out of school and learns he needs someone to explain what the hell is going on with the insurances and he cant prescribe what is needed to his patients, because some pencil pusher for the insurance company says otherwise.
I feel this is going to make the occupation of doctor less appealing.
If there's more need for doctors than is being met, that seems like an opportunity to employ more doctors.
the government and the AMA restrict the number of doctors that are allowed into medical school. also there are only so many residence spots available.
But think about this for a moment. If, when everyone has access to healthcare, the demand for doctors goes up, that means the need for that amount of healthcare is there. Taking access away until the usage drops just means you're cutting people off from the healthcare they need. That's not fixing the problem, unless you prefer fewer people getting care with shorter wait times to everyone getting the care they need even if they have to wait a little longer for non-urgent problems.
No it doesn't. it makes getting into see a doctor harder. which means your condition gets worse not better.
you say non-urgent problems. sorry i would rather not be on my back before someone deems i am urgent enough.
An average of a year to see a specialist and an average of 8 hour wait in ED? That does sound pretty bad.
That is why the canadian government is ignoring all of these private medical centers all over the place. they are taking some of the the burden off the public system. although more are required.
Are you asserting that the reason for high medical costs in the US is that you do lots of R&D, and that that cost is passed directly on to customers? And not, for example, the rampant price distortion by hospitals and insurance companies, nor the paperwork and malpractice insurance costs you mentioned earlier? I would like to see something to back that up.
that is just part of the reason. there are others that i listed above.
mostly paperwork and malpractice costs, and in that i included un-needed testing to ensure that a lawsuit isn't required.
ol insurance comany's and hospitals are inflating prices which is why i say we switch to an all cash based system.
it is the reason that a hospital can advertise a CT for 4000 dollars. insurance price is 2000 wow what a deal. ol wait if you pay cash you can get it between 200-400 dollars.
blood work a insurance can cost 90 dollars cash 20.
insurance paper work cost doctors a good chunk of change.
I am a 41 year old single male, what if I don't have Maternity care and BAM, I get a sudden case of Immaculate Conception?
yeah i know right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I am a 41 year old single male, what if I don't have Maternity care and BAM, I get a sudden case of Immaculate Conception?
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
And on the person complaining that his policy costs 20-30% more than his old employer based policy, that's normal, very few employers cover less than 40-50% of their employee policies - so the net policy is actually quite a bit cheaper, just you don't have someone else sharing the cost with you. It would have to be 80-100% more where it would've counteracted even the minimum help an employer gives. [Very few help under that because there's zero tax benefit to even setting up the employer healthcare program until you hit 40% - and the 40% benefit is pretty substantial more than 1:1]
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
A lot of them did.
But you had the choice to pick carefully and only get the coverage you wanted.
Isn't having choices better then being forced to buy what you don't need?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All the kids who played the blues
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
Would depend on your state I believe Shinriko - I've never seen a plan during my selection process for setting up ours (Wegman's) each year that didn't include maternity personally. But it might just be that NY, PA and MD where I've set up insurance policies it's been a required coverage.
And I thought it's been well-established that proper infant care is important and that women should be treated as equals which would include trying to keep their costs equal even when treatment might be slightly unequal?
After all, most of the improvements to WIC specifically have been under Republican leadership even though the program itself was Democratic initially as proposed. And it ties very importantly in with making "Pro-Life" a more sensible option, if you can't even afford the maternity costs because your insurance won't cover you, aren't you going to be FAR more likely to take the cheaper alternative?
It's really a win-win with how our political spectrum works - everyone should want maternity care unless they're allowing logical oxymorons to exist.
i take it you didn't read any of the articles that i posted on this. yes there are people out there that chose to get those types of plans.
People "choose" a high deductible why again, exactly? A low deductible is strictly better than a high deductible. A high deductible is this and a low deductible is this.
they live healthy and they really only need hospital coverage.
And regular visits to the doctor for screenings and vaccines and the like too, right? And visits to the dentist and the optometrist? You know, like is recommended?
are not quacks. you better becareful before calling people quacks. your hyperbole arguements are also getting a bit tired to the point i can't really take you serious.
Dude, I was saying something was wrong with the ACA. I was giving you ammo.
(And yes, chiropractic is basically an obsession with a particular organ. A number of older, now discredited medical theories focused on a particular organ: Autointoxication theory on the intestines and anus, reflex neurosis on the genitals, chiropractic on the spine, and so on. They've been reborn as "alternative" cures.)
You note, however, I didn't say "frauds". Which would be a lie; quacks are, quite simply, convinced they're right. (Strictly speaking, a quack is anyone who overpromotes a medical treatment; even using an antibiotic for the flu is quackery.)
Trust me i know while there are some chiropractors out there that give others a bad name there are doctors out there that do the same thing.
I have a friend who, when he was a kid, his pediatrician asked his parents if they were cousins because of some kidney problem. (I didn't know House went into pediatrics.) I've met psychiatrists (not gone to them, but met them) who...let's just say physician, heal thyself.
But in this case, it's inherent to the theory, rather than just an issue with individual patients.
The government runs on LCD. the onl way it can control costs of a national healthcare system is to restrict what drugs and procedures you an have.
it took years before the european healthcare system would let women with breast cancer get herceptin even though it is one of the leading treatments for breast cancer.
why? cost was to expensive. even now in france and other parts of europe they are cutting back on what procedures and drugs they allow.
sorry even the canadian system is trying to spend billions of dollars in order to get the wait times down. that is the number 1 complaint about your healthcare system is the wait time it takes to get to see a doctor.
And your point is? All you're saying is they're trying to make a good system better.
Of course, saying it's the "number 1 complaint" doesn't mean it's really bad. It could mean everything else is better. So please, spare us relativistic complaints.
ahh yes our infamous symptom treating makers. they are in the business of treating symptoms vs working on things to cure people.
i think the worst was was shaky leg syndrom. uggg.
You mean "restless leg syndrome".
Actually, it's a myth that scientific medicine "just focuses on symptoms". (Ironically, this is true of homeopathic medicine, simila similibus curantur and all that. Latin works like a Confundus spell.)
Agreed about the drug companies. That's another problem. The biggest chutzpah has to be Nexium, made by the same people as Prilosec. Nexium works "better than" Prilosec, according to the ads. In reality, Nexium becomes Prilosec in the body.
the US is number 1 for medical technology and medical procedures.
[citation needed] It is true that medical journals are more often than not published in English (largely because the scientific community hated the Germans in the 30s; it has to do with so many physicists being censored by Hitler for being Jewish or socialists).
But I see a lot of names in these journals who aren't US citizens, and don't live in the US. And not all journals are American.
But since you're just repeating talking points at this point...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
That's a bit of a misleading statement, don't you think? There's a huge difference between paying into a pool that covers some other people for maternity, and actually buying coverage for maternity.
And on the person complaining that his policy costs 20-30% more than his old employer based policy, that's normal, very few employers cover less than 40-50% of their employee policies - so the net policy is actually quite a bit cheaper, just you don't have someone else sharing the cost with you. It would have to be 80-100% more where it would've counteracted even the minimum help an employer gives. [Very few help under that because there's zero tax benefit to even setting up the employer healthcare program until you hit 40% - and the 40% benefit is pretty substantial more than 1:1]
I think you're missing the main thrust of the complaint: his old employer based policy is gone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
That's a bit of a misleading statement, don't you think? There's a huge difference between paying into a pool that covers some other people for maternity, and actually buying coverage for maternity.
Kind of like under/uninsured mandatory for auto insurance policies. WHy should I have to buy insurance for myself and for others when insurance is mandatory?
People "choose" a high deductible why again, exactly? A low deductible is strictly better than a high deductible. A high deductible is this and a low deductible is this.
Or maybe they couldn't get anything else.
Or maybe they are an individual for whom it is advantageous to have more choices in healthcare than "silver," "gold," or "platinum" -- like, let's say, a personally and financially responsible individual who has built up a self-insurance reserve in an HSA to cover themselves against incidents below a certain dollar figure and only requires coverage above that dollar figure -- vastly reducing his annual healthcare costs.
But yeah, it could also be someone who couldn't get anything else, I suppose.
(Also, Magic players of all people should know how not to misuse the phrase "strictly better." High deductible plans cover less and cost less.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Kind of like under/uninsured mandatory for auto insurance policies. WHy should I have to buy insurance for myself and for others when insurance is mandatory?
I'm not sure what you mean here. You do have to buy insurance when insurance is mandatory. That's what "mandatory" means.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Kind of like under/uninsured mandatory for auto insurance policies. WHy should I have to buy insurance for myself and for others when insurance is mandatory?
I'm not sure what you mean here. You do have to buy insurance when insurance is mandatory. That's what "mandatory" means.
First, why should anyone need under/uninsured insurance when insurance is mandatory?
Second, I was comparing the example given of a man having to have maternity insurance when he is not going to use it, as compared to the mandatory car insurance for people who are just going to say screw it, not going to get it anyway.
A man paying for maternity insurance will never be used by the man, but I am pretty sure someone will get those dollars, probably a person who is under/uninsured when it comes to health care.
Well, indeed. Except that my personal experience with our socialised healthcare system in the last year or so is that, for a not-at-all-time-critical case, my wait for a specialist was a few weeks, and for a somewhat more urgent case, my wait time for ED was on the order of how quickly they could get the wheelchair from the hospital entrance to ED.
The difference being that you don't have 300m people living in your country.
when MA put in their insurance for all thing the city of boston has more doctors per 1000 people than any other city in the US. they also have some of the worst wait times to see a doctor.
which means that people aren't getting the appointments they need in time.
Mystery, a few things:
1. The MMS Access to Patient Care Study only takes into account those services that you would specifically schedule in advance. In this case, we're talking about checkups for Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Pediatrics and Cardiology. (Source: 2013 MMS Access to Patient Care Study)
2. The average wait time to see a doctor in 2005 (before mandated insurance) was 47 days. It has remained consistently between 47 and 50 days since then. Mandating health insurance has not affected the wait times to see a doctor, so you cannot say that it's the reason "we have not been getting the appointments we need in time". (Source: 2011 MMS Study, since it's the last one with previous year's statistics).
3. As a resident of MA, I have never had to wait more than a day to see a doctor for something that wasn't routine... and that wait was to schedule an appointment with an ENT to get my nose cauterized. Urgent Care (things that aren't important enough to go to a hospital for, but should be taken care of quickly) is phenomenal in MA.
Is the ACA the best system out there, no. Can we implement procedures to bring down the cost of healthcare (like doing away with the Chargemaster and fixing malpractice insurance), absolutely. The healthcare system back in 2008 was untenable, and this was the best system that we could get passed to at least delay the inevitable.
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
That's a bit of a misleading statement, don't you think? There's a huge difference between paying into a pool that covers some other people for maternity, and actually buying coverage for maternity.
You don't actually buy coverage for maternity with a single male plan as it stands today with the ACA either, you do realize - right?
Depending on the insurance company, some have taken to listing it on all policies, but men still don't actually get the coverage unless it covers things like maternity leave in which case paternity leave gets wrapped up in it too now. That's the only time it's actually assessed to a man.
And on the person complaining that his policy costs 20-30% more than his old employer based policy, that's normal, very few employers cover less than 40-50% of their employee policies - so the net policy is actually quite a bit cheaper, just you don't have someone else sharing the cost with you. It would have to be 80-100% more where it would've counteracted even the minimum help an employer gives. [Very few help under that because there's zero tax benefit to even setting up the employer healthcare program until you hit 40% - and the 40% benefit is pretty substantial more than 1:1]
I think you're missing the main thrust of the complaint: his old employer based policy is gone.[/QUOTE][/quote]
Right - but he's saying the policy is more expensive - to him it is, but in reality the policy itself is cheaper.
I was trying to reinforce the fact that the problem was that it's no longer an employer plan and that employer plans will always be preferable.
Kind of like under/uninsured mandatory for auto insurance policies. WHy should I have to buy insurance for myself and for others when insurance is mandatory?
I'm not sure what you mean here. You do have to buy insurance when insurance is mandatory. That's what "mandatory" means.
At least for the states I've lived in you have two insurances you actually pay into, the insurance for YOU and your own liability, plus another 20% or so that you end up paying for "uninsured/underinsured" insurance overall.
Maybe your state(s) that you're familiar with don't do that, but it's a commonplace thing for the states I'm familiar with. And always something that seemed like an oxymoron for these mandatory insurance states as well - but I guess stuff happens enough that they made a stupid law to mandate it.
Not sure why you are bringing up Republicans (I'm Libertarian) and "Pro-Life" (I'm Pro-Choice).
I was quoting that a common group fueling anti-ACA stuff is being a bit shortsighted in their own ideals in hating on that specific requirement. Not implying your specific feelings - I try to make statements open-ended for the sake of inclusion to all rather than targeting specific individuals when it seems appropriate to include. (Sometimes I start such of with "As an aside..." to make it clear, and I really should do that more often than I do...)
If I can't afford a child then by golly I shouldn't be getting anyone pregnant now should I?
And people should keep every other instinct in check all the time - we shouldn't have laws and protections against violence because everyone is going to keep those instincts in check at all times, right? Ideally people shouldn't, but we're not robots.
Sorry I don't believe equality should mean "everyone's bill is equal regardless of need/risk".
I shouldn't pay for the DUI the guy down the street has, you shouldn't pay for my obesity, and I shouldn't pay for Maternity coverage I won't use.
You're welcome to believe that, but that's not going to be a view shared by many - some people being expected to pay 500% more for literally the same benefit isn't something that most people expect to see rationally. Except for choices that are completely voluntary, like smoking - that are allowed to be charged at a different rate under the ACA.
But since you're just repeating talking points at this point...
yep you do the same thing the only difference I have posted sources on mine to back me up. you on the other hand do not post sources at all.
so there is the end of that.
until you can actually post sources that show something then I have no further business addressing you.
First, why should anyone need under/uninsured insurance when insurance is mandatory?
First off the car insurance thing is a fallacy. you only need car insurance if you intend to drive a car. if you don't drive a car then you don't need insurance.
Under/uninsured insurance is to protect you from people that are trying to cheat the system.
what this has to do with a guy that doesn't need maternity care I have no idea. they are totally not one in the same.
He shouldn't be paying maternity care if he doesn't need it.
some people being expected to pay 500% more for literally the same benefit isn't something that most people expect to see rationally.
if you lead an unhealthy lifestyle why should the rest of society be forced to pay more because of you?
that is the problem with the ACA. if you are young healthy or even healthy in general you are going to be paying more than someone that is old and sick.
look up the community rating act. it basically forces higher premiums on people that are younger and healthier.
of which the subsidies won't do them any good.
You don't actually buy coverage for maternity with a single male plan as it stands today with the ACA either, you do realize - right?
First off the car insurance thing is a fallacy. you only need car insurance if you intend to drive a car. if you don't drive a car then you don't need insurance.
Under/uninsured insurance is to protect you from people that are trying to cheat the system.
what this has to do with a guy that doesn't need maternity care I have no idea. they are totally not one in the same.
He shouldn't be paying maternity care if he doesn't need it.
My point is, insurances, backed by government laws, force people to pay for things they dont need. Whether its auto insurance, home owners insurance, or now health insurance.
Trust me i know while there are some chiropractors out there that give others a bad name there are doctors out there that do the same thing.
A good chiropractor can fix most back issues without the need of surgery.
most also offer other theraputic services such as acupuncture and massage thearapy both of which are recommended forms of treatment depending on what your issue is.
If i am sick or need medicine i go to a doctor. if i have a pull back or my lower back is out of place i will go see my chiropractor.
I want to go out of my way here to say I agree with you. Chiropractors are legitimate and helpful in ways that even some medical doctors can't help. This idea that MD means "the best" is not always true.
Specifically on this part, what about socailized medicine dictates what drug or procedures you can or can't have is more prevelant than right now?
The government runs on LCD. the onl way it can control costs of a national healthcare system is to restrict what drugs and procedures you an have.
it took years before the european healthcare system would let women with breast cancer get herceptin even though it is one of the leading treatments for breast cancer.
why? cost was to expensive. even now in france and other parts of europe they are cutting back on what procedures and drugs they allow.
This is baseless. The cost per capita is lower those countries not more expensive. What do you have other than your expert and insightful opinion of the US government do you have that would suggest that the ACA will do anything to limit procedures? Secondly what is the evidence for the argument against socialized medcine being "bad" per person?
And as far as wait times I have asked you this before if I recall. Do you realize that you are basically saying "we need to get poor people to stay at home so that people with more money don't have to wait longer".
strawman
Actually its not. To prove it provide a legitimate reason why our wait times are higher despite having fewer doctors? Is the corrolation of poor individuals with no health insurance or ability to pay doctor bills so they stay home simply a happy coincidence?
I also debunked this idea that its inneficcent. Just because the wait time is shorter doesn't mean tis more efficent. It is only quicker because more people have access to the healthcare. (*BTW we do have 8 hour ER wait times. Go to an ER in a big city and you can wait for 12+hours. Triage is nothing forgien)
sorry even the canadian system is trying to spend billions of dollars in order to get the wait times down. that is the number 1 complaint about your healthcare system is the wait time it takes to get to see a doctor.
who cares if it is free if you can't use it. ol yea it isn't free you pay taxes and in some cases a premium on top of it depending on the provence.
1) Its not free. Its much much much much cheaper and the social responsiblity is taken care of rather than left to the dogs...but its not free.
2) The wait tims are not as bad as what you say. At least not on average. Their wait tims are not much worse than American wait times on average. And if "wait times" are the worst thing you have to worry about then you have it good. Instead of not being able to GET the coverage at all.
It is to be noted that if you have a serious issue then you go to the front of the line and you do NOT have a significant wait time. At all. Gunshot wounds go before the sniffles. Also to be noted general clinc appointments for general things are not a very long wait. In fact its almost as fast as American standards and everyon still gets treatment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two weeks?
Are you only counting when the website is up?
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
If there's more need for doctors than is being met, that seems like an opportunity to employ more doctors.
But think about this for a moment. If, when everyone has access to healthcare, the demand for doctors goes up, that means the need for that amount of healthcare is there. Taking access away until the usage drops just means you're cutting people off from the healthcare they need. That's not fixing the problem, unless you prefer fewer people getting care with shorter wait times to everyone getting the care they need even if they have to wait a little longer for non-urgent problems.
An average of a year to see a specialist and an average of 8 hour wait in ED? That does sound pretty bad. I did a quick google for stats for us, didn't see anything on specialists, but from this year, "93 percent of patients were treated, admitted, and discharged from an emergency department within 6 hours".
Rising costs are a problem for all health systems at the moment. It's not because they're insurance-based, socialised, cash-shop, etc. But your medical outcomes are about equal to those of nations with socialised healthcare, and you're paying a lot more per capita - and your already-inflated costs will still go up.
Are you asserting that the reason for high medical costs in the US is that you do lots of R&D, and that that cost is passed directly on to customers? And not, for example, the rampant price distortion by hospitals and insurance companies, nor the paperwork and malpractice insurance costs you mentioned earlier? I would like to see something to back that up.
Hey, if Congress are spending months impotently trying to repeal it, that's time that they're not casting their baleful glare on anything else. I'd call that a positive.
Obamacare cost me my job last year because they simply didn't want to pay for it, and now my current employer is ending all employee benefits at the end of 2013. After I'd say 20 attempts at getting on the exchange the insurance policies they want to sell me are 30-35% higher then what I was paying into my employer coverage. Its anything but affordable.
RUG
Enchantress
But they are robust plans that cover all sorts of things you don't need.
Don't you see the value in that?
I am a 41 year old single male, what if I don't have Maternity care and BAM, I get a sudden case of Immaculate Conception?
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
The problem with this thinking is there is more to it then just demand. Some kid spends a decade of his life learning to be a doctor spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on schooling, then gets out of school and learns he needs someone to explain what the hell is going on with the insurances and he cant prescribe what is needed to his patients, because some pencil pusher for the insurance company says otherwise.
I feel this is going to make the occupation of doctor less appealing.
the government and the AMA restrict the number of doctors that are allowed into medical school. also there are only so many residence spots available.
No it doesn't. it makes getting into see a doctor harder. which means your condition gets worse not better.
you say non-urgent problems. sorry i would rather not be on my back before someone deems i am urgent enough.
That is why the canadian government is ignoring all of these private medical centers all over the place. they are taking some of the the burden off the public system. although more are required.
that is just part of the reason. there are others that i listed above.
mostly paperwork and malpractice costs, and in that i included un-needed testing to ensure that a lawsuit isn't required.
ol insurance comany's and hospitals are inflating prices which is why i say we switch to an all cash based system.
it is the reason that a hospital can advertise a CT for 4000 dollars. insurance price is 2000 wow what a deal. ol wait if you pay cash you can get it between 200-400 dollars.
blood work a insurance can cost 90 dollars cash 20.
insurance paper work cost doctors a good chunk of change.
yeah i know right.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Guess what? Any plan that included maternity before and women in the same pool as you before (and most did) you were paying for it before, just you didn't hear about it because the lunatic fringe wasn't stating it daily.
And on the person complaining that his policy costs 20-30% more than his old employer based policy, that's normal, very few employers cover less than 40-50% of their employee policies - so the net policy is actually quite a bit cheaper, just you don't have someone else sharing the cost with you. It would have to be 80-100% more where it would've counteracted even the minimum help an employer gives. [Very few help under that because there's zero tax benefit to even setting up the employer healthcare program until you hit 40% - and the 40% benefit is pretty substantial more than 1:1]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
A lot of them did.
But you had the choice to pick carefully and only get the coverage you wanted.
Isn't having choices better then being forced to buy what you don't need?
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
And I thought it's been well-established that proper infant care is important and that women should be treated as equals which would include trying to keep their costs equal even when treatment might be slightly unequal?
After all, most of the improvements to WIC specifically have been under Republican leadership even though the program itself was Democratic initially as proposed. And it ties very importantly in with making "Pro-Life" a more sensible option, if you can't even afford the maternity costs because your insurance won't cover you, aren't you going to be FAR more likely to take the cheaper alternative?
It's really a win-win with how our political spectrum works - everyone should want maternity care unless they're allowing logical oxymorons to exist.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If I can't afford a child then by golly I shouldn't be getting anyone pregnant now should I?
Sorry I don't believe equality should mean "everyone's bill is equal regardless of need/risk".
I shouldn't pay for the DUI the guy down the street has, you shouldn't pay for my obesity, and I shouldn't pay for Maternity coverage I won't use.
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
So abolish the DEA then.
[citation needed]
Also, first world problems. Some people can't even afford a doctor. And treating and streeting indigent patients causes your hospital bills to go up.
People "choose" a high deductible why again, exactly? A low deductible is strictly better than a high deductible. A high deductible is this and a low deductible is this.
Or maybe they couldn't get anything else.
And regular visits to the doctor for screenings and vaccines and the like too, right? And visits to the dentist and the optometrist? You know, like is recommended?
Dude, I was saying something was wrong with the ACA. I was giving you ammo.
(And yes, chiropractic is basically an obsession with a particular organ. A number of older, now discredited medical theories focused on a particular organ: Autointoxication theory on the intestines and anus, reflex neurosis on the genitals, chiropractic on the spine, and so on. They've been reborn as "alternative" cures.)
You note, however, I didn't say "frauds". Which would be a lie; quacks are, quite simply, convinced they're right. (Strictly speaking, a quack is anyone who overpromotes a medical treatment; even using an antibiotic for the flu is quackery.)
I have a friend who, when he was a kid, his pediatrician asked his parents if they were cousins because of some kidney problem. (I didn't know House went into pediatrics.) I've met psychiatrists (not gone to them, but met them) who...let's just say physician, heal thyself.
But in this case, it's inherent to the theory, rather than just an issue with individual patients.
[citation needed]
And your point is? All you're saying is they're trying to make a good system better.
Of course, saying it's the "number 1 complaint" doesn't mean it's really bad. It could mean everything else is better. So please, spare us relativistic complaints.
It's cheaper than private insurers.
You mean "restless leg syndrome".
Actually, it's a myth that scientific medicine "just focuses on symptoms". (Ironically, this is true of homeopathic medicine, simila similibus curantur and all that. Latin works like a Confundus spell.)
Agreed about the drug companies. That's another problem. The biggest chutzpah has to be Nexium, made by the same people as Prilosec. Nexium works "better than" Prilosec, according to the ads. In reality, Nexium becomes Prilosec in the body.
[citation needed] It is true that medical journals are more often than not published in English (largely because the scientific community hated the Germans in the 30s; it has to do with so many physicists being censored by Hitler for being Jewish or socialists).
But I see a lot of names in these journals who aren't US citizens, and don't live in the US. And not all journals are American.
But since you're just repeating talking points at this point...
On phasing:
I think you're missing the main thrust of the complaint: his old employer based policy is gone.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Kind of like under/uninsured mandatory for auto insurance policies. WHy should I have to buy insurance for myself and for others when insurance is mandatory?
Or maybe they are an individual for whom it is advantageous to have more choices in healthcare than "silver," "gold," or "platinum" -- like, let's say, a personally and financially responsible individual who has built up a self-insurance reserve in an HSA to cover themselves against incidents below a certain dollar figure and only requires coverage above that dollar figure -- vastly reducing his annual healthcare costs.
But yeah, it could also be someone who couldn't get anything else, I suppose.
(Also, Magic players of all people should know how not to misuse the phrase "strictly better." High deductible plans cover less and cost less.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You do have to buy insurance when insurance is mandatory. That's what "mandatory" means.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First, why should anyone need under/uninsured insurance when insurance is mandatory?
Second, I was comparing the example given of a man having to have maternity insurance when he is not going to use it, as compared to the mandatory car insurance for people who are just going to say screw it, not going to get it anyway.
A man paying for maternity insurance will never be used by the man, but I am pretty sure someone will get those dollars, probably a person who is under/uninsured when it comes to health care.
Mystery, a few things:
1. The MMS Access to Patient Care Study only takes into account those services that you would specifically schedule in advance. In this case, we're talking about checkups for Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Pediatrics and Cardiology. (Source: 2013 MMS Access to Patient Care Study)
2. The average wait time to see a doctor in 2005 (before mandated insurance) was 47 days. It has remained consistently between 47 and 50 days since then. Mandating health insurance has not affected the wait times to see a doctor, so you cannot say that it's the reason "we have not been getting the appointments we need in time". (Source: 2011 MMS Study, since it's the last one with previous year's statistics).
3. As a resident of MA, I have never had to wait more than a day to see a doctor for something that wasn't routine... and that wait was to schedule an appointment with an ENT to get my nose cauterized. Urgent Care (things that aren't important enough to go to a hospital for, but should be taken care of quickly) is phenomenal in MA.
Is the ACA the best system out there, no. Can we implement procedures to bring down the cost of healthcare (like doing away with the Chargemaster and fixing malpractice insurance), absolutely. The healthcare system back in 2008 was untenable, and this was the best system that we could get passed to at least delay the inevitable.
You don't actually buy coverage for maternity with a single male plan as it stands today with the ACA either, you do realize - right?
Depending on the insurance company, some have taken to listing it on all policies, but men still don't actually get the coverage unless it covers things like maternity leave in which case paternity leave gets wrapped up in it too now. That's the only time it's actually assessed to a man.
I think you're missing the main thrust of the complaint: his old employer based policy is gone.[/QUOTE][/quote]
Right - but he's saying the policy is more expensive - to him it is, but in reality the policy itself is cheaper.
I was trying to reinforce the fact that the problem was that it's no longer an employer plan and that employer plans will always be preferable.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
At least for the states I've lived in you have two insurances you actually pay into, the insurance for YOU and your own liability, plus another 20% or so that you end up paying for "uninsured/underinsured" insurance overall.
Maybe your state(s) that you're familiar with don't do that, but it's a commonplace thing for the states I'm familiar with. And always something that seemed like an oxymoron for these mandatory insurance states as well - but I guess stuff happens enough that they made a stupid law to mandate it.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I was quoting that a common group fueling anti-ACA stuff is being a bit shortsighted in their own ideals in hating on that specific requirement. Not implying your specific feelings - I try to make statements open-ended for the sake of inclusion to all rather than targeting specific individuals when it seems appropriate to include. (Sometimes I start such of with "As an aside..." to make it clear, and I really should do that more often than I do...)
And people should keep every other instinct in check all the time - we shouldn't have laws and protections against violence because everyone is going to keep those instincts in check at all times, right? Ideally people shouldn't, but we're not robots.
You're welcome to believe that, but that's not going to be a view shared by many - some people being expected to pay 500% more for literally the same benefit isn't something that most people expect to see rationally. Except for choices that are completely voluntary, like smoking - that are allowed to be charged at a different rate under the ACA.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
yep you do the same thing the only difference I have posted sources on mine to back me up. you on the other hand do not post sources at all.
so there is the end of that.
until you can actually post sources that show something then I have no further business addressing you.
First off the car insurance thing is a fallacy. you only need car insurance if you intend to drive a car. if you don't drive a car then you don't need insurance.
Under/uninsured insurance is to protect you from people that are trying to cheat the system.
what this has to do with a guy that doesn't need maternity care I have no idea. they are totally not one in the same.
He shouldn't be paying maternity care if he doesn't need it.
if you lead an unhealthy lifestyle why should the rest of society be forced to pay more because of you?
that is the problem with the ACA. if you are young healthy or even healthy in general you are going to be paying more than someone that is old and sick.
look up the community rating act. it basically forces higher premiums on people that are younger and healthier.
of which the subsidies won't do them any good.
This is not correct.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-does-marketplace-health-insurance-cover/
all health insurance plans on the market are required to have maternity coverage. that is a minimum plan in the law.
which means if you are a single male your plan is going to have maternity coverage whether you want it or not.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
My point is, insurances, backed by government laws, force people to pay for things they dont need. Whether its auto insurance, home owners insurance, or now health insurance.
I want to go out of my way here to say I agree with you. Chiropractors are legitimate and helpful in ways that even some medical doctors can't help. This idea that MD means "the best" is not always true.
This is baseless. The cost per capita is lower those countries not more expensive. What do you have other than your expert and insightful opinion of the US government do you have that would suggest that the ACA will do anything to limit procedures? Secondly what is the evidence for the argument against socialized medcine being "bad" per person?
Actually its not. To prove it provide a legitimate reason why our wait times are higher despite having fewer doctors? Is the corrolation of poor individuals with no health insurance or ability to pay doctor bills so they stay home simply a happy coincidence?
1) Its not free. Its much much much much cheaper and the social responsiblity is taken care of rather than left to the dogs...but its not free.
2) The wait tims are not as bad as what you say. At least not on average. Their wait tims are not much worse than American wait times on average. And if "wait times" are the worst thing you have to worry about then you have it good. Instead of not being able to GET the coverage at all.
It is to be noted that if you have a serious issue then you go to the front of the line and you do NOT have a significant wait time. At all. Gunshot wounds go before the sniffles. Also to be noted general clinc appointments for general things are not a very long wait. In fact its almost as fast as American standards and everyon still gets treatment.