[SeaGypsy]

In countries with a proper medical system like those in western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand; personal responsibility for health is focused on diet and excersize. The insurance aspect is optional and definitely under lifestyle in importance for self care. As I pointed out earlier, through the public health system here I have paid the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars for 10 doctor visits. Yet I have never had to have private insurance. I prefer to pay extra tax, knowing that everyone else is also; to anything like the horrors of the USA system.
Does anyone know the percentage of money in health going into the insurance industry itself, with no health outcomes resulting whatsoever (except the prevention of starvation of those in the insurace industry)?
Here in Australia there is a major squabble going on about the federal government wanting to take over the entire management of the health system from the states, mainly to reduce beaurocratic duplication/ waste, as well as contradictory policy between states and the feds. Whatever they do and decide, it is not going to become the case where a heart attack or a broken leg costs you your house. Or that you may be in court for years with your insurance company making excuses not to pay.
Those in the countries listed are generally 90% supportive of a public health system. Americans have been cleverly sold a lie, that privatisation is better. This has gone on so long that almost half of the population believe it.
The rest of the modern world looks on in awe at American gullibility.
A country as rich as the USA permitting the possibility of someones finances being utterly destroyed over a few days or weeks of treatment, simply because they could not afford to pay $100 a week into the insurance system, is clearly immoral and ruled by corporate rather than public interest.

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I')n countries with a proper medical system like those in western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand; personal responsibility for health is focused on diet and excersize. The insurance aspect is optional and definitely under lifestyle in importance for self care. As I pointed out earlier, through the public health system here I have paid the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars for 10 doctor visits. Yet I have never had to have private insurance. I prefer to pay extra tax, knowing that everyone else is also; to anything like the horrors of the USA system.
Does anyone know the percentage of money in health going into the insurance industry itself, with no health outcomes resulting whatsoever (except the prevention of starvation of those in the insurace industry)?
Here in Australia there is a major squabble going on about the federal government wanting to take over the entire management of the health system from the states, mainly to reduce beaurocratic duplication/ waste, as well as contradictory policy between states and the feds. Whatever they do and decide, it is not going to become the case where a heart attack or a broken leg costs you your house. Or that you may be in court for years with your insurance company making excuses not to pay.
Those in the countries listed are generally 90% supportive of a public health system. Americans have been cleverly sold a lie, that privatisation is better. This has gone on so long that almost half of the population believe it.
The rest of the modern world looks on in awe at American gullibility.
A country as rich as the USA permitting the possibility of someones finances being utterly destroyed over a few days or weeks of treatment, simply because they could not afford to pay $100 a week into the insurance system, is clearly immoral and ruled by corporate rather than public interest.

[Ayoob]

Those nations control their immigration. We don't.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'T')hose nations control their immigration. We don't.

[Loki]

Illegals get "free" care in the same way most poor people get free care in the US. They go to the emergency room, probably the most expensive way to receive health care, so they drive up costs. AFAIK emergency rooms can't technically turn you away, but Ayoob knows more about this than I do.

I did basically get turned away once years ago when I was an undergraduate and had no insurance. I accidentally stabbed myself in the hand and cut an artery, so I went to the nearest hospital a mile away or so. When they found out I didn't have insurance, they very strongly suggested I go down the road to another hospital, which I did, and they fixed me up and helped me get on the state health plan.

That was my first little taste of our wonderful health care system. When I lived in Wales one of my coworkers cut his hand pretty badly when testing his strength against an industrial blender (he lost). He went straight to the nearest clinic and got fixed up, no charge. When I lived in Canada I believe my insurance cost $50/mo or thereabouts. That's for full coverage, but of course doesn't include their very high taxes.

The US health care system is FUBAR, but it appears the Dems are going to do very little to fix this, except require us to give our money to the insurance syndicates.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'T')hose nations control their immigration. We don't.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '
')Surely Spanish lessons would be cheaper than insurance?

[Narz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'I') find it just a little odd that nobody has chimed in to say that they have health insurance, or they don't have a problem paying for health insurance.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Why pay that much? Do you really think you'll need almost $5000 of medical care per year?

[Bas]

I've heard that many of you disagree, but:

Congratulations on your new healthcare plan, America!



And you might not believe it right now, but I believe in time this plan will (in time) do a lot to control the spun out of control costs of healthcare in the US, in addition to extending healthcare to 32 million of Americans. People shouldn't be allowed to play roulette with their hospital bills, to me (and almost all of the rest of the developed world) it's the same as not having insurance for police help or even insurance for having a fair trial (or a trial at all) when you're accused of something; it's one of the core (or very close to it) responsibilities of any state. Saving bankrupt automakers on the other hand is not.

[rangerone314]

If it means more health care to people who didn't have it before, won't that increase demand for health care services?

Someone refresh me.

What happens in economics to the price of a service/product when you drastically increase the demand for service/product, without drastically increasing the supply (doctors, nurses in this case) to match?

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'I')'ve heard that many of you disagree, but:

Congratulations on your new healthcare plan, America!



And you might not believe it right now, but I believe in time this plan will (in time) do a lot to control the spun out of control costs of healthcare in the US, in addition to extending healthcare to 32 million of Americans. People shouldn't be allowed to play roulette with their hospital bills, to me (and almost all of the rest of the developed world) it's the same as not having insurance for police help or even insurance for having a fair trial (or a trial at all) when you're accused of something; it's one of the core (or very close to it) responsibilities of any state. Saving bankrupt automakers on the other hand is not.

[gollum]

Seems like a giveaway, by force from the pockets of the American eople to the insurance industry and to some extent the 40-65 age group....

[rangerone314]

Simply put, the bill is BOHICA exemplified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOHICA

[Narz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Why pay that much? Do you really think you'll need almost $5000 of medical care per year?

[Bas]

Loki, I see this as a good start making healthcare costs more manageable. Insuring people that are uninsured actually cost more than they will now that they're insured: now they get treated only when there's an emergency that often could've been avoided by earlier and simpler treatment; the costs of emergency treatment of these uninsured usually ended up with the taxpayer anyway.

Furthermore, this bill means the start of curbing the power of insurers (the bankers) both in health insurance as well as liability insurance for doctors. Also the power of pharmaceutical companies will have to be curbed, giving docters bonuses prescribing expensive medicine that sometimes is less effective than generic medicine. Lots of possibilities to bring back the costs from 16% of GDP to the more normal average of 8% of GDP that is normal in most of the rest of the Western world (and usually covers everybody, and usually results in a higher life expectancy than in the US)

Still lots of work to be done after this bill, but it's a good start IMO. But like you said we'll have to wait and see. Nobody ever likes healthcare insurance reform; they did this about 10 years ago here in Holland, and now I'm glad they did, at the time, not so much.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'L')oki, I see this as a good start making healthcare costs more manageable. Insuring people that are uninsured actually cost more than they will now that they're insured: now they get treated only when there's an emergency that often could've been avoided by earlier and simpler treatment; the costs of emergency treatment of these uninsured usually ended up with the taxpayer anyway.

[Loki]

Here's an example of the devil in the details of this bill. Below is the cheapest plan one of the largest health-care providers in my region currently offers for a single, childless 36-year-old male with no preexisting conditions (aside from doomerism). It has a $7500 deductible, 50% coinsurance after deductible, and no coverage for prescription drugs. In other words, it's completely useless in every way.

Based on my admittedly still limited understanding of the new health care bill, the only things that would change in 2014 when it goes into effect are:

(1) I'd be forced to buy this turd of a product, but instead of paying $129/mo, I'd pay $75-$85/mo since the fedgov would subsidize a small portion of it

(2) Annual maximum out-of-pocket would be reduced from $10k to $5950, and lifetime maximums would be eliminated

That's it. I'd still have a $7500 deductible, I'd still have 50% coinsurance on most things, and I'd still have no coverage for prescription drugs. If someone else has a better understanding of the new bill, let me know where I'm wrong.



Bronze $7500

Benefits Summary
Annual Individual Deductible $7,500 member
Annual Family Deductible $22,500 family
Annual out-of-pocket maximum - member $10,000 member
Annual out-of-pocket maximum - family $30,000 family
Plan Lifetime Maximum $2,000,000
Primary Care Office Visit $35 Copay per visit (Not subject to Deductible)
Nurse Treatment Visit (including allergy injection) 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Prenatal care, first postpartum visit and lactation consultations $35 Copay per visit (Not subject to Deductible)
Preventive $35 Copay per visit (Not subject to Deductible)
Specialty Office Visit 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Urgent Care 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Vision Exam 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Lab 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
X-ray 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Vision Hardware Not Covered
Inpatient Hospital (includes Maternity) 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Outpatient Surgery 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Emergency Services
Ambulance Services for Medically Necessary Transportation 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Emergency department visit 50% Coinsurance after Deductible
Prescription Drug Coverage
Prescription Drugs Not covered

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', ' ')It has a $7500 deductible, 50% coinsurance after deductible, and no coverage for prescription drugs. In other words, it's completely useless in every way.

[AgentR]

Loki, I'm looking at that "useless" plan, and I'm wondering, how is it in any way other than perfect for someone in your biological and social condition? In a common English restatement, the play says, "If you get cancer or some other horrible disease, hospitals will not be desperately trying to play "hand-off" with your rotting, not quite dead corpse."

The plans you are thinking about as "not useless", perhaps like mine, are really nothing but prepaid medical care, because we're old, broken, and/or diseased, but still productive, citizens. Its just more reasonable to pay a flat x-odd hundred a month, have meds mailed to the door, and not worry about how many vials of blood the docs want to suck out of us in any given month. I put it in a spreadsheet once, and it essentially breaks even, with the possible gain on the insurers side that our current working drug combos will become cheaper over time (which they have), and the risk on the insurers part that some hideous complication will arise costing them tens of thousands of dollars.

Now, what you may have been doing is simply relying on the tax payer to provide the stated bronze plan implicitly, because you know, that if you did get cancer, and consequently lost your ability to work and ending up on state support; it is exactly the tax payer that would be paying for your chemo, surgery, or other drugs. Perhaps you entertained the rationalization that if you got one of these crippling diseases that you'd just go out in your backyard and eat a bullet; most do not do so. And a contract between you and the society saying that YOU would be different and do so, would not be binding.

So you get to suck it up, pay your $100/mo in health taxes, and ditch the implicit reliance upon the taxpayer in the event of your unlikely disease-ification.