View Full Version : 87 million Americans w/o health insurance
rayna
03-14-2009, 01:57 PM
i've lived in france for six years, and can vouch that their health system is great. you do not wait "months" to see a specialist or have exams done, french public hospitals put american ones to shame and the coverage is amazing. last time i was there i got an endoscopy (camera down throat) for 20 euros and when i was younger an mri for 80 euros. having lived in both countries, i am appalled at the american health system and fucking tired of not going to the doctor when i am sick because i cannot afford to. how many millions is the government spending on the iraq war each day?? apparently we can afford to wreak havoc halfway across the globe but not ensure the basic human right of health care for our citizens. not even wounded vets get proper care. disgusting. dont even get me started on the mental health system.
as for the heat wave deaths, bear in mind that france has a very elderly population and therefore a high number of deaths at any time, coupled with the lack of air conditioners and the unfortunate fact that people dont neccessarily check on their elders or take care of them.
threlayer
03-14-2009, 05:39 PM
^^ You see, the conservatives say we have no right to health care. It is just an expense we have to be able to afford.
If people took the money they spend on smoking, drinking, casino gambling, bad food habits, etc and spent it on healthcare, we'd have a better healthcare system. And we'd have fewer things to spend it on that divert us from having better health. But we'd also have a LOT of complainers.
Elvia
03-14-2009, 06:22 PM
^^ You see, the conservatives say we have no right to health care. It is just an expense we have to be able to afford.
If people took the money they spend on smoking, drinking, casino gambling, bad food habits, etc and spent it on healthcare, we'd have a better healthcare system. And we'd have fewer things to spend it on that divert us from having better health. But we'd also have a LOT of complainers.
I don't spend money on any of those things (though I dare say keeping good eating habits often costs a lot more than poor habits. I could eat for cheap if I ate off a value menu everyday, but where would that leave me?) and I am still struggling to get my healthcare needs met all the time.
glambman
03-14-2009, 10:13 PM
Apples to apples?
Then we need to view Europe as a whole, considering area and populations. The 2003 Euro Heat Wave cause 52,000 deaths.
And then can you pull up the number of deaths from hypothermia in France and Europe?
EDIT:: I can't quite find hypothermia, can you help me.... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
threlayer
03-15-2009, 07:10 AM
... though I dare say keeping good eating habits often costs a lot more than poor habits. I could eat for cheap if I ate off a value menu everyday, but where would that leave me ....
I agree somewhat, especially now that dried beans, wheat flour, fruits, and basic veggies have gotten so pricey. If one eats as per the basic food triangle (which was a good concept), you can stay healthy and the cost is pretty low. Staying away from 'prepared' foods, going along with the above statement, helps with both. But foods cost quite a bit more now than they did even two years ago.
I dont know how those chains keep prices so low unless they buy older products at a huge mass-buy discount. and do minimal preparation. I know that if I look too closely and taste too thoroughly, I would just throw that fast food in the trash.The few times I am caught having to buy it.
The country song with the lyrics "a 99 cent heart attack" is not too far off.
threlayer
03-17-2009, 08:18 AM
We need a system that emphasizes preventative long-term health over short-term incidents.
How many people, for example, go to the doctor over a common cold or other things that are just gonna take their course?
How soon before life insurance will have a weight or body-mass index in addidtion to the current smoking and employment class rate categories?
How soon will restaurants serve more health-conscious meals, and maybe even two sizes with different cost brackets?
I could thnk of a few more...but prevention in general costs less than the cure.
We do not emphasize prevention as much as cure, I suppose, because prevention involves many more institutions than just physicians and hospitals. And it involves personal 'liberties' so would probably have a similar controversy connected with helmets for bikers. People do not want to relinquish any personal liberties for the social good of all. This has been shown over and over from human pre-history and on. But we were dumb then and couldn't cure any diseases.
threlayer
03-17-2009, 06:55 PM
Here's another problem, at least in NYS, the state with the highest per capita Medicaid reimbursements....
Hospitals are required by the state to impose an 8.89% surcharge on all hospital bills, even lab tests, to account for unpaid bills by the uninsured and the destitute.
So when your $11,000 invoice comes in the mail for that procedure your insurance didn't cover, you are paying almost $900 for those who didn't pay. You have to pay extra for what others didn't...primarily because they don't have insurance, often because they canot afford the high premiums for it. PLUS, as a private pay, you do not get the advantages of negotiated rates that insurance companies do, so whatever rate you got for your procedures is higher for you. This because they want private payers to make up the difference between rates they wanted to charge the insurance company and what they actually were able to negotiate. That's the way it works out. Somnetimes the insurance company procedure rates are one THIRs to one HALF of the rates they charge private pays.
So that really sticks it to you after they already stuck you so many times during your stay.
So don't tell me that our healthcare system is OK. It isn't and hasn't been for a long time and now it's getting really serious.
threlayer
03-24-2009, 01:46 PM
You're not gonna like this but...
U.S. health insurers seek individual coverage mandate
By Donna Smith
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All Americans should be required to obtain health insurance as part of a sweeping overhaul that President Barack Obama says is needed to expand coverage and reduce soaring costs, insurance industry representatives told Congress on Tuesday.
If insurers are required to end the practice of excluding coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, then such a mandate will be necessary to keep insurance premiums affordable, Karen Ignagni, who heads the America's Health Insurance Plans, told a Senate panel.
"Clearly the market today doesn't work because we don't have everyone in," Ignagni told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.
Insurers are worried that without the individual mandate, people would wait until they become sick to obtain insurance.
....
from http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52N6EF20090324
Paris
03-24-2009, 01:55 PM
Wow. Appearently the insurance companies are seeing the handwriting on the wall.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_go_ot/insurers_sick_people
Basically, they know that if they don't start providing affordable coverage to everyone, then the government will do it instead, driving them out of business.
glambman
03-24-2009, 02:09 PM
Government and affordable lololol
I wonder about lifestyle penalties. I always thought it was discriminatory when I had to pay more for insurance because I smoked. Why weren't other lifestyle choices, with risk, also paying extra.
Paris
03-24-2009, 02:16 PM
Government and affordable lololol
I wonder about lifestyle penalties. I always thought it was discriminatory when I had to pay more for insurance because I smoked. Why weren't other lifestyle choices, with risk, also paying extra.
I think they are paying more. I have a friend that has to pay incredible amounts of money due to the fact that she once went to treatment for meth addiction. She's been clean for over 12 years, and this still haunts her. My accountant shared with me that his insurance dropped him after he sought counseling while going through a divorce, and was diagnosed as depressed. He fought it, but when they took him back, they charged him 3 times as much.
threlayer
03-24-2009, 02:26 PM
Your occupation is a discriminatory factor too. It's your lifestyle that affects your rates, not your health record (except for pre-conditions). I'm sure their studies in lifestyle influence show strong correlations between healthcare cost and smoking and other lifestyle risks. Lifestyle risks should affect your rates because it should not be spread to others choosing a safer lifestyle.
I think it is odd that Glambman expect this, in light of his other economic preferences.
This year the state of Massachusetts starts deducting amounts equivalent to healthcare insurance from taxpayers return if they show no proof of insurance coverage. I have no idea what they can do for the unemployed with insufficient incomes to buy food, pay rent, or health insurance.
The Fed is considering the same, as shown by this article.
glambman
03-24-2009, 02:33 PM
Paris, I don't think a former "anything" should be penalized like that. IMO getting divorced does not fall into the "lifestyle" choices that add risk.
Paris
03-24-2009, 02:38 PM
Paris, I don't think a former "anything" should be penalized like that. IMO getting divorced does not fall into the "lifestyle" choices that add risk.
Anything to make a buck, I suppose was the rational.
threlayer
03-24-2009, 07:43 PM
They are data-driven, I presume. If it didn't show up as a higher payout item, it supposedly would not be a discriminatory factor.
eagle2
03-25-2009, 11:08 AM
Government and affordable lololol
I really don't see what's so funny about that statement. Why is it that you laugh at every statement that goes against your ideology? This is the kind of behavior I would expect from a 5 or 6 year old.
The fact is, in this country government run hospitals (VA Hospitals) provide healthcare more cheaply than privately run hospitals. In addition, countries where the government provides healthcare spend a lot less money on healthcare per person than the United States.
glambman
03-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Government has excessive regulations that in comparison to the nonprofit/ private sector, runs the costs to administer up.
Countries with nationalized healthcare also ration care to varying degrees.
VA and military hospitals are the exception, not the rule. ALso, when you have no recourse for malpractice, it tends to lower operating costs.
Paris
03-25-2009, 06:24 PM
Government has excessive regulations that in comparison to the nonprofit/ private sector, runs the costs to administer up.
This statement kind of explains:
VA and military hospitals are the exception, not the rule. ALso, when you have no recourse for malpractice, it tends to lower operating costs.
That statement. Also, if the medical staff is so highly regulated, malpractice would be less of a problem as a result.
eagle2
03-25-2009, 08:41 PM
Government has excessive regulations that in comparison to the nonprofit/ private sector, runs the costs to administer up.
Countries with nationalized healthcare also ration care to varying degrees.
VA and military hospitals are the exception, not the rule. ALso, when you have no recourse for malpractice, it tends to lower operating costs.
Why are they the exception? As far as I know, they are the only hospitals run by the federal government in this country.
Patients do have recourse for malpractice.
http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/veterans-medical-malpractice-claim.htm
threlayer
03-26-2009, 07:27 AM
Big Business and Affordable..... don't make me laugh!
how much money do they waste -- i'll tell you, it's a lot, even with competition
Malpractice is mistakes; it is not just 'inefficiency". Did you ever make a mistake when you thought you were being efficient? Well, now you know.
If the healthcare industry would treat mistakes like the FAA treats airplane crashes, we'd be well on the way to reducing the almost 40,000 HOSPITAL deaths each year to to them. Hospitals are big business, not government. How much waste is there in hospitals? Annual hospital waste of perfectly good products would keep a few smaller nations going, especially African ones where so much essential supplies are lacking.
hockeybobby
03-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Our most beloved Canadian is the man that brought government controlled universal healthcare to our country. Is it perfect? Is anything perfect? Ask any Canadian what they most appreciate about their country, and they are likely to say our healthcare.
Eric Stoner
03-26-2009, 12:27 PM
Our most beloved Canadian is the man that brought government controlled universal healthcare to our country. Is it perfect? Is anything perfect? Ask any Canadian what they most appreciate about their country, and they are likely to say our healthcare.
Bobby - As a Canadian, you are best situated to address several concerns that many people have about instituting a Canadian style system in the U.S. based on FACTS and not cherry picked complaints and horror stories. On my many visits ( to my second favorite country ) I have heard different things from my Canadian friends but generally they are pleased with the Canadian system.
1. The cost. How much extra do Canadians pay in taxes to finance their system ?
2. Rationing. Does it exist to hold down costs ? Some say: Yes. Some say: No.
3. Cost controls. Some say they effectively keep health costs under control. Others say they stifle innovation; warp incentives for doctors to see more patients and limit the types of treatment available. Is there a limit on how many patients a doctor can see ? On how many operations they can do per year ?
4. Waiting times. A favorite of Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and other conservative doomsayers. My understanding is that waiting for a surgical procedure is common in Ontario and Quebec and rare in the Atlantic and Western provinces. This supposedly can include bypass operations, kidney transplants and the like. Likewise, one can have to wait weeks to see a primary provider and months to see a specialist. I've heard both that Canadian E.R.'s are efficient and professional and also that they are overcrowded and understaffed. Which is it ?
5. Drug prices. My understanding is that Canada negotiates with drug companies on price and buys in bulk i.e. the government buys enough of a particular drug to meet the reasonably anticipated annual need for same.
6. Private Insurance. Can you buy additional and "better" coverage ?
7. Private Treatment. Can you pay out of your own pocket to see the doctor you want , when you want and get the treatment you want when you want it ?
Looking forward to a Fact -based Canadian POV.
glambman
03-26-2009, 02:27 PM
Why are they the exception? As far as I know, they are the only hospitals run by the federal government in this country.
Patients do have recourse for malpractice.
http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/veterans-medical-malpractice-claim.htm
It seems that I joined the VA and the military system.
I was born in the military system and grew up with it for the first 15-16 years of my life. I even had a life threatening illness taken care of at NAS JAX. It is the active duty military system that you cannot sue for malpractice. There have been many expose's on news magazines, and the like.
The VA has had severe budget crises in the last 5 years alone.
hockeybobby
03-26-2009, 03:15 PM
Bobby - As a Canadian, you are best situated to address several concerns that many people have about instituting a Canadian style system in the U.S. based on FACTS and not cherry picked complaints and horror stories. On my many visits ( to my second favorite country ) I have heard different things from my Canadian friends but generally they are pleased with the Canadian system.
1. The cost. How much extra do Canadians pay in taxes to finance their system ?
2. Rationing. Does it exist to hold down costs ? Some say: Yes. Some say: No.
3. Cost controls. Some say they effectively keep health costs under control. Others say they stifle innovation; warp incentives for doctors to see more patients and limit the types of treatment available. Is there a limit on how many patients a doctor can see ? On how many operations they can do per year ?
4. Waiting times. A favorite of Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and other conservative doomsayers. My understanding is that waiting for a surgical procedure is common in Ontario and Quebec and rare in the Atlantic and Western provinces. This supposedly can include bypass operations, kidney transplants and the like. Likewise, one can have to wait weeks to see a primary provider and months to see a specialist. I've heard both that Canadian E.R.'s are efficient and prfessional and also that they are overcrowded and understaffed. Which is it ?
5. Drug prices. My understanding is that Canada negotiates with drug companies on price and buys in bulk i.e. the government buys enough of a particular drug to meet the reasonably anticipated annual need for same.
6. Private Insurance. Can you buy additional and "better" coverage ?
7. Private Treatment. Can you pay out of your own pocket to see the doctor you want , when you want and get the treatment you want when you want it ?
Looking forward to a Fact -based Canadian POV.
Alright, my point of view, not as an expert mind you, just as a citizen.
4. Wait times. I have a neighbour who is elderly/retired, who needed a kidney transplant. He was on a waiting list for a kidney that was maybe a year long wait. During his wait, his condition worsened, and he was moved up in priority, and recieved his transplant quicker. Afterward, he had (and still does) a long regimen of drug treatments, but is still with us, and seems ok.
I once waited 4 hours for some stitches from a hockey injury. It was New Years eve day, and all the clinics were closed, so I went to emergency. Unfortunately, lots of sicker people had to be taken care of before me. So I waited.
Waiting is ok. We all have to wait at times. For other waiting stories, what can I say? I have no inside knowledge of that. Like you, I've heard this or that.
1,2,3,5,6,7 are all pretty much dealing with money/expense/cost. The facts and figures are out there. We probably pay more taxes here in total...that's just what I hear anecdotaly. I've read that our cost for healthcare as a percentage of GDP is much lower.
Wealthy people will never have a problem in any system you care to devise. If they want to hire their own personal doctor or arrange their own hospital, or fly anywhere in the world that will give them the best care for money...well, they are able to do that. This thread isn't about the rich though, it's about the people who slip through the cracks. Up here, we're all covered for the basics...what else matters? Money isn't supposed to buy a person special privelege in our system, but let's face it, a determined person with money can probably find a way to move to the head of the line. It wouldn't surprise me if that happens. Probably wouldn't surprise anyone.
The only extra insurance I've ever heard about is Blue Cross for when I leave the country. But there is supplementary insurance or special policies for just about any risk you can dream up. That is normal for any country. Drug prices....I always wonder when I pick up a prescription for antibiotics or whatever why they cost so much, but that's the extent of my input there. I've heard of Americans buying their drugs here, but I haven't heard of the reverse...so I don't know.
If our healthcare cost more, even a lot more, I'd still want it to cover everyone. And even if I never have to use it myself, I'd still like to know it's there. Whether or not you would want a system like ours will probably depend on whether you benefit from the status quo or not. Like..."what's in it for me?" is the usual underlying theme.
Paris
03-26-2009, 03:24 PM
It seems that I joined the VA and the military system.
I was born in the military system and grew up with it for the first 15-16 years of my life. I even had a life threatening illness taken care of at NAS JAX. It is the active duty military system that you cannot sue for malpractice. There have been many expose's on news magazines, and the like.
The VA has had severe budget crises in the last 5 years alone.
Well, Obama does have an additional $25 billion in his budget for the VA. That should help a bit in the VA's budget crisis (that is if the congress passes that potion of his budget).
threlayer
03-26-2009, 06:52 PM
About veterans healthcare, it seems to be that we have been gradually decreasing the healthcare and other benefits that we as a country provide for our veterans, even for combat veterans. I for one think it's a national disgrace.
(Memorial Day and Veterans Day are nice (I celebrate it) but how about helping out the still living. It should not be looked at as an extra vacation day to get drunk on. Shame.)
Dyllan
10-20-2011, 09:51 AM
Oddly, an AFLAC rep, peddling insurance, has been camping in our locker room for the past two weeks.
Kellydancer
10-20-2011, 11:16 AM
Odd that this was bumped because today in the paper there was a story about a Mexican family who came here illegally so the kid could get Medicaid. That's where much of the welfare money is going and why many Americans don't have insurance.
poleforfun
10-20-2011, 12:27 PM
Personally, I thought I was done with dancing. But this is the main reason I am going back. I am having health issues and I need the money to take care of it. I am also scared that I will have a pre-existing condition of some sort and then get stuck dancing for longer than I'd like. But who knows, we'll have to wait and see. I have looked for a regular job but cannot find one, and I need to be looked at by a doctor now. We also have two kids off of insurance. We make too much to qualify for the state programs, but not enough to afford health care on top of our other bills.
Friend2000
12-06-2011, 01:41 AM
This is still very true. I posted about discount health plans in the marketplace section because they are not insurance, so rates are not affected by any government decisions. And, they are the same for all. If you click the links just indicate which state you are to see if the authorized choices compare better. Is ok to pm me if any questions.
Article link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090304/ts_nm/us_usa_health_uninsured)
I figured that a lot of ladies in our industry probably fall into this category. Just thought I'd share.
michele11
12-06-2011, 03:50 PM
I haven't read the thread and I do think we need healthcare for those working class that can't afford like 700 a month to cover a few people but girls who dance should have a plan! I've had it since I move out on my own I paid 70 a month. It's up to 260 now but come on girls who make money( I hear them all complaining they have no money to go to the doctor) but they can afford boob job after boob job and botox ect.
The Jackal
12-06-2011, 07:03 PM
This is a cause of concern in a country so wealthy. Why is health care beyond the reach of so many Americans? Why has it become so expensive? Does expensive equal good health care?
Too many questions! :)
Friend2000
12-06-2011, 09:31 PM
I was researching that for some time.
Here is one article that gives some answers.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/10/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110311
I keep relevant news on my Facebook page to save time.
This is a cause of concern in a country so wealthy. Why is health care beyond the reach of so many Americans? Why has it become so expensive? Does expensive equal good health care?
Too many questions! :)
The Jackal
12-11-2011, 07:14 AM
I was researching that for some time.
Here is one article that gives some answers.
I keep relevant news on my Facebook page to save time.
Thanks for the info!
Melonie
12-13-2011, 12:51 PM
Why is health care beyond the reach of so many Americans? Why has it become so expensive?
A. American drug and medical device companies take the lead on R&D for new drugs, new devices, new medical procedures etc. While the entire world benefits from this research and development, almost all of the actual R&D costs are passed on to US health care consumers ( via high priced patented drugs, high priced medical devices etc. )
B. A significant part of a doctor's decision to order tests and diagnostic procedures do not stem from medical need. Instead they stem from the doctor's 'need' to successfully defend himself against potential malpractice lawsuits and sky-high future malpractice insurance premiums. Other countries that do not permit such lawsuits, or more importantly do not permit multi-million dollar awards for 'pain and suffering' etc., do not 'waste' money on this US practice of 'defensive medicine'.
C. America's gov't based medical reimbursement programs i.e. medicare, medicaid etc. dictate how much the doctor / medical facility will be 'reimbursed' for performing a particular procedure. The gov'ts mandated 'reimbursement' rate actually falls below the doctor's / medical facility's actual costs of providing that procedure in many cases. This in order to 'break even', doctors and medical facilities are forced to 'overcharge' self pay / private health insurance patients in order to provide a 'stealth subsidy' for medicare and medicaid patients.
D. US laws do not allow medical facilities to turn away would-be patients in need of emergency medical care if they have no insurance ( private or gov't ) or if they have no money. 100% of the costs of providing medical treatment to such patients must be tacked onto the amounts charged to patients having private health insurance or who self-pay in order for the medical facility to 'break even'.
E. In the USA, there is no cost / benefit evaluation in regard to potential medical / drug treatments. Thus if an insured patient is offered the option of a $250,000 surgical procedure that will extend their life for 6 months or a year, since there is no 'cost' to that patient ( beyond their deductible ) the procedure will probably be done ! Of course the insurance company must then recoup that $250,000 cost from other insurance customers via higher insurance rates. In many other countries, a gov't board would decide whether or not the $250,000 'heroic measure' would actually be allowed / paid for by gov't health insurance if the prognosis was 'only' for a six month life extension ( with questionable 'quality of life' ).