IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Yes, repeat it all you want; it'll remain the same.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, repeat it all you want; it'll remain the same.

It's frustrating when people (like you) come up with these grand ideas about how they want things to work but then have so little understanding of the underpinnings. What's more frustrating is that these people (and you, obviously) don't care to understand why these ideas are broken.

I'll keep my comments and responses for others since you are so obviously just dead weight on this thread.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

2. Is it possible that the European experience is itself unique?

It's possible.

It just doesn't explain why Canada has implemented a universal health care system. Or India, for that matter. Or Australia. Or Israel or Japan, or New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the Seychelles, Sri Lanka or Taiwan.

It's not like all of them shared the European experience.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, repeat it all you want; it'll remain the same.

It's frustrating when people (like you) come up with these grand ideas about how they want things to work but then have so little understanding of the underpinnings. What's more frustrating is that these people (and you, obviously) don't care to understand why these ideas are broken.

I'll keep my comments and responses for others since you are so obviously just dead weight on this thread.

Thank you; I'll return the favor.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

okie wrote :

Quote:
hamburger, your point is valid, and that is the reason health insurance should not be a function of businesses. They don't buy our homeowners insurance, why health insurance? I realize it got started as a perk, but it should be stopped, and if it has to be legislatively, maybe?

our "so-called" universal government health insurance is paid through general taxation (which both employees AND employers have to pay !) ,
sales taxes PLUS a relatively small premium payable by everyone earning more than appr. $20,000 - but if your income is too low and you do not pay a premium you are nevertheless covered - AND you usually get a "GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT" on top of it .

while employers do have to contribute to the health-insurance system through general taxation , their contribution is apparently considerable lower than having to pay for PRIVATE insurance for their employees in the U.S.

most employers also either pay fully or contribute substantially to what we call in canada "EXTENTED HEALTH BENEFITS" - such as dental , prescription meds , out of country insurance etc. etc. - tailor-made to attract and maintain their workforce .

btw what you describe as "perk" is really not different than vacation , sick-leave , bonus payments (i'm sure senior management wouldn't want to part with ??? do you propose "legislation" to make "bonus payments illegal ) , christmas turkeys ( ) - you name it .
companies usually do whatever is necessary to keep employees from quitting quickly and looking for another job , don't they ?
hbg

One big noose around the neck of auto manufacturers is the union negotiated insurance and retirement benefits. I think the auto makers caved to their demands over the years, but one thing I would like to see is our companies freed from too much baggage that hinders their ability to compete and keep the manufacturing here in the states. Auto manufacturers are only one sector seeing this impediment to business ability to compete. There are other impediments as well.

Small business owners can go into groups with other business owners to use buying power to purchase affordable health insurance, in the same way that businesses do. But back to auto insurance, why can't we do medical insurance similarly, apart from business subsidizing personal expenses?

If companies want to buy Christmas turkeys and give bonuses at the end of the year, that seems perfectly fine, but providing insurance should not be compulsory or normal. I think there are better ways of doing it.

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

If companies want to buy Christmas turkeys and give bonuses at the end of the year, that seems perfectly fine, but providing insurance should not be compulsory or normal. I think there are better ways of doing it.

when i wrote "bonus" i was not thinking much about a $100 or even $1,000 year-end bonus(so that's fine by me) but the huge bonus payments bosses pretty well vote for themselves - even in the process of running companies into the ground !

it also seems to me that the ford family (just as an example) has done pretty well even after paying for emplyee health insurance . it certainly hasn't forced the ford family to declare bankruptcy or lose their home - as many auto-workers have .

certainly in ontario , the japanese automakers have happily hired the laid-off and fired autoworkers from the BIG THREE - and a/t reports are turning out products as good as those in japan .
so from all accounts it's NOT lazy workers that have caused the BIG THREE to lose market-share , instead the BIG THREE were often unable/unwilling to respond to market changes (READ : DEMAND !) .

i'm sure you heard the following :

Quote:

It was once famously said by General Motors' president Charles E. Wilson, "What's good for General Motors is good for America" -- one of the most repeated of modern quotations.

well , that worked for a while , but eventually GM got sloppy and the customers reacted to that sloppynesss with a "raspberry" !
hbg

NB : i'm wondering what you think of paid vacation and sick-leave ; do they fall into the same category as health-benefits ?

0 Replies

I do agree something needs to be done about lousy management getting away with robbing companies into the ground. Part of the problem are the boards of directors that have a buddy system, wherein a guy serves on the other guy's board, I scratch your back while you scratch mine type of system. I think we could do something about this through the tax system perhaps, if not other ways.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

But back to auto insurance, why can't we do medical insurance similarly

you REALLY don't want to bring auto insurance into the discussion. the Canadian provinces that have gone to public auto insurance have some scarily good statistics about decreased rates of claims, as well as decreased premiums, and increased quality of service.

0 Replies

A question in between: why are hospitals that treat high numbers of Medicaid patients poorer than others? Doesn't Medicaid pay the bills as do other insurence companies?

(The bills for uninsured aren't paid by anyone, right?)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

A question in between: why are hospitals that treat high numbers of Medicaid patients poorer than others? Doesn't Medicaid pay the bills as do other insurence companies?

(The bills for uninsured aren't paid by anyone, right?)

This is part of the problem that I tried mentioning earlier. Medicaid does NOT pay the bills. Well, it does, kinda. The reimbursement rate by medicaid is a very small fraction of what the care costs anyone else. I'm pretty sure that my boyfriend's office gets $3.50 per visit from a mecicaid/medicare patient. This is the reason a lot of hospitals and practices are going private - so they don't have to accept government programs.

0 Replies

Not super familiar, Walter, but from observation with people I know - as with any government run program, as also with Medicare, they put caps on what they pay for certain procedures and after a limited time in the hospital, the patient may be sent home whether he or she is totally ready to be home or not, because the time has run out for what the government mandates to pay for under their cookie cutter, one size fits everybody policies. Since the government runs these programs under a budget, similar to other government run programs, medical care becomes rationed in various ways, such as what procedures are paid for under certain circumstances, how much is paid, how long is allowed for recuperation, followup, and all of the rest. Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

That's correct. Most of what is not covered is considered "elective." Some medications may not be covered either for many reasons. For instance, Retin-A (retinoic acid) is not covered by most insurance companies for people over 18. It is used to treat acne but it also has the side effect that it tightens and renews skin. So many women want it to help maintain their younger looks. It costs from $50 to $125 per tube, depending if it is a cream or microgel or whatever.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

That's correct. Most of what is not covered is considered "elective." Some medications may not be covered either for many reasons. For instance, Retin-A (retinoic acid) is not covered by most insurance companies for people over 18. It is used to treat acne but it also has the side effect that it tightens and renews skin. So many women want it to help maintain their younger looks. It costs from $50 to $125 per tube, depending if it is a cream or microgel or whatever.

So, if it's a drug, prescribed by doctors to treat a condition, why isn't it covered?

I find the process of deciding which drugs are 'elective' to be insulting. It isn't up to an insurance company to decide what is elective and what isn't, but my doctor and I.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

He that has the purse strings has the say, cyclops. This has always been the case and always will be, which is one reason I am in favor of privately controlled and paid for health care, as much as possible.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

That's correct. Most of what is not covered is considered "elective." Some medications may not be covered either for many reasons. For instance, Retin-A (retinoic acid) is not covered by most insurance companies for people over 18. It is used to treat acne but it also has the side effect that it tightens and renews skin. So many women want it to help maintain their younger looks. It costs from $50 to $125 per tube, depending if it is a cream or microgel or whatever.

So, if it's a drug, prescribed by doctors to treat a condition, why isn't it covered?

I find the process of deciding which drugs are 'elective' to be insulting. It isn't up to an insurance company to decide what is elective and what isn't, but my doctor and I.

Cycloptichorn

It is elective because it isn't needed. Thought that was pretty obvious myself... Women do not live healthier lives by having smooth skin. Unlike acne, it is not an infection, it is normal progression through life. I don't think it should be covered either.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

That's correct. Most of what is not covered is considered "elective." Some medications may not be covered either for many reasons. For instance, Retin-A (retinoic acid) is not covered by most insurance companies for people over 18. It is used to treat acne but it also has the side effect that it tightens and renews skin. So many women want it to help maintain their younger looks. It costs from $50 to $125 per tube, depending if it is a cream or microgel or whatever.

So, if it's a drug, prescribed by doctors to treat a condition, why isn't it covered?

I find the process of deciding which drugs are 'elective' to be insulting. It isn't up to an insurance company to decide what is elective and what isn't, but my doctor and I.

Cycloptichorn

It is elective because it isn't needed. Thought that was pretty obvious myself... Women do not live healthier lives by having smooth skin. Unlike acne, it is not an infection, it is normal progression through life. I don't think it should be covered either.

I don't think you are qualified to make that assessment, Hokie. You aren't a doctor (presumably), and neither is the insurance company. It shouldn't be up to them to decide what is necessary or not.

It isn't just women - men have acne problems as well. Retin-A helped one of my brothers out big time. It has lead to a better life for him in many, many ways. Not everyone's body adjusts to adulthood and gives up acne normally, and it can be a socially ostracizing thing for a guy or girl in their late 20's.

I don't think that you, or the insurance company, has the right to say what is or should be necessary, or not. They should agree to cover the scrips a patient needs, or not; the practice of covering some but not others, based upon an arbitrary decision made by those who are looking to maximize profits, is never going to be a practice which favors the patient.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

I can't see the difference between a state run system and a privately run system here. Certainly private insurance companies will also put caps on what is covered by a specific programme you signed up and pay premiums for. That's the same kind of rationing as you'd get with government programmes.

Sure, you can pay more, and more services will be covered. On the other hand, I don't see why that wouldn't work in a government run system.

And there are lots of alternatives, too: you could just cover all basic treatments in a single government run system, and allow people to sign up with private insurance companies to cover all those "elective" services.

Or you could make health insurance mandatory instead of having it state run, but make people only pay for basic services - and leave it to them to pay higher premiums if they want to have "elective" services covered.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
Rationing is a term that will pop up for any government run program.

Thanks, okie.

Well, I've heard that some insurances don't cover everything what's on the doctor's order as well. But I don't know that from own experience, just what I heard in the USA and here on A2K.

That's correct. Most of what is not covered is considered "elective." Some medications may not be covered either for many reasons. For instance, Retin-A (retinoic acid) is not covered by most insurance companies for people over 18. It is used to treat acne but it also has the side effect that it tightens and renews skin. So many women want it to help maintain their younger looks. It costs from $50 to $125 per tube, depending if it is a cream or microgel or whatever.

So, if it's a drug, prescribed by doctors to treat a condition, why isn't it covered?

I find the process of deciding which drugs are 'elective' to be insulting. It isn't up to an insurance company to decide what is elective and what isn't, but my doctor and I.

Cycloptichorn

It is elective because it isn't needed. Thought that was pretty obvious myself... Women do not live healthier lives by having smooth skin. Unlike acne, it is not an infection, it is normal progression through life. I don't think it should be covered either.

I don't think you are qualified to make that assessment, Hokie. You aren't a doctor (presumably), and neither is the insurance company. It shouldn't be up to them to decide what is necessary or not.

It isn't just women - men have acne problems as well. Retin-A helped one of my brothers out big time. It has lead to a better life for him in many, many ways. Not everyone's body adjusts to adulthood and gives up acne normally, and it can be a socially ostracizing thing for a guy or girl in their late 20's.

I don't think that you, or the insurance company, has the right to say what is or should be necessary, or not. They should agree to cover the scrips a patient needs, or not; the practice of covering some but not others, based upon an arbitrary decision made by those who are looking to maximize profits, is never going to be a practice which favors the patient.

Cycloptichorn

You apparently didn't read what I wrote. It *IS* covered for acne (although only for people under 18 or 12 usually). It IS NOT covered for other uses.

Actually, I sometimes do have bad skin. And while you are right that I am not a physician, I am very good friends with a few and have been in a relationship with one for the past 2 years. He prescribed Diferin for me (basically the same as retin-a) and again, wasn't covered. I actually wanted it for the acne, not the skin-revitalizing properties. So, I paid for it. It was $107. I still completely understand why it isn't covered by insurance companies.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Or you could make health insurance mandatory instead of having it state run, but make people only pay for basic services - and leave it to them to pay higher premiums if they want to have "elective" services covered.

[What is done best in Switzerland.]

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know