Obamacare
Options
Replies
-
Here is an article about the NY doctor.... the plan was slightly different than I remember it... but that's neither here nor there.
http://www.vosizneias.com/28392/2009/03/04/new-york-ny-doctor-trying-to-help-uninsured-patients-with-annual-low-fee-is-being-fought-by-state-bureaucrats/0 -
Wow - I come back and it's eight pages later!
I glanced around (kind of TL;DR) but there is NO reason why we can't implement a well-working universal healthcare system in the United States. I think Obama is just trying for ANYthing better than the current crapstorm that is healthcare in the US.
I mean, for-profit health insurance companies? Really? Brilliant! :sick:
Health care is a public wellness and safety issue, and should be available to all and fall within the same realm as our socialized education, transportation systems, fire/rescue, peace officers, and so on.0 -
Awwww.....new puppy?! What kind? How old?Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,
Golden Retriever, 4 months and 1 week. He is the dog in my avatar (he's doubled in size since then). I put him to work right away to spread a political message-- but he's still cute.0 -
If that system is so great why was the UK trying desperately to find cost saving measures recently? They are trying to shave 31 b from the NHS budget by 2015. That will only lead to shortages in staff, nurses and doctors which will not lead to better care. Why have there been reports for people who had to give birth in ambulances, or people who had to come here because they couldn't get timely treatment for their cancer?
The UK, like most of the rest of the world at the moment, is in a state of recession. Cuts and efficiency measures are taking place across the country in all spheres, not just the NHS. The proposed changes in the NHS focus on reducing the money spent on administration, moving regional clinical decision-making into the hands of medics rather than business-managers, and actions such as combining two or more smaller practices into one larger facility, leading to significant savings on overheads etc. The changes are explicitly designed NOT to affect clinical care and staffing levels, despite what the nursing unions and certain elements of the press here would like the public to think.
I am aware of people travelling outwith the UK to seek specialist care in other centres of excellence, as per my earlier post, but I'd be astonished if that choice had really been made because of a delay in treatment for cancer, of all things. Elective and non-emergency treatments regularly get bumped to prioritise critical treatments - that's where the majority of public dissatisfaction usually arises, and why some choose to purchase additional private insurance. As for giving birth in an ambulance, I'm fairly sure that occurs in countries with non-socialised medical care as well. The fact that we are taxed at source for our healthcare doesn't make us any better or worse at predicting labour progression or at predicting how many women are going to go into labour at any given time!
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
Edited to add: In referring to patients travelling overseas because of delays in treatment, you may have been referring to the NHS policy of having critical patients treated outside their home region, or abroad if necessary, if waiting lists in their home area are too long for the problem at hand. The NHS still pays for this treatment. I must confess I had forgotten about this policy until I just double-checked something else, but wouldn't you say that's an example of putting health-care for the individual first - something that seems to concern a lot of US commentators.
By the way, your figures on the cuts are somewhat odd, given the current government's pledge to increase NHS budgets in England year-on-year until the end of this parliament (probably in 2015). £31bn (out of a budget well over £100 billion) may be the figure the government believes it is possible to save through efficiency measures, not an actual cut imposed. Where are you getting your figures from?0 -
How much was the total cost? My insurance covers 80% I believe...so unless it's a $20,000 bill for removing tonsils...which I doubt...then just what kind of insurance do you have?I know, but insurance doesn't cover 100%, there will still be people not paying their portions. For example, my son has his tonsils out in March and I just got a bill for $4000 after my insurance covered the rest. I can't even afford the monthly payments of $270 that they want me to pay. How is forcing people to have insurance going to change that?
Tonsilectomy-
http://healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx?id=9&dataset=hosp
I hate forums that have no link buttons.0 -
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.0 -
"Hi, I'm a repulblican who's so outraged by the Health Care Mandate I'm going to do all I can to elect the guy who did it first."
You have to admit, the irony is kind of funny.0 -
It's funny seeing all the new comments start to show up.
Sometimes it seems like people are spending a big part of their work days on MFP ......:laugh:
I work Sun-Thurs and have been super busy, so I have had to catch up. Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,
I just got a new puppy too. 5-6 am seems to be a magic number with those guys. I will catch up on this thread later. Time to work so i can pay for my health insurance
. 0 -
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.
Actually no it's not... :indifferent: It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything... :grumble: Why can't there be differing schools of thought without it being boiled down to well such and such group hates poor/sick/other adjective that pulls at the heart strings people and well such and such group hates freedom/liberty/any other adjective that alludes to the "American way".... perhaps if we quit saying crap like this then maybe would could actually find a solution that works for (almost) everyone.... *sigh* I feel like that unless everyone subscribes to the same thought process and opinions that those that differ are all evil... and I feel this way regardless of which party or political way of thinking one is a part of.... It's crap like this that I hate our two party system... the whole us vs. them mentality that should be saved for College Football...0 -
If that system is so great why was the UK trying desperately to find cost saving measures recently? They are trying to shave 31 b from the NHS budget by 2015. That will only lead to shortages in staff, nurses and doctors which will not lead to better care. Why have there been reports for people who had to give birth in ambulances, or people who had to come here because they couldn't get timely treatment for their cancer?
The UK, like most of the rest of the world at the moment, is in a state of recession. Cuts and efficiency measures are taking place across the country in all spheres, not just the NHS. The proposed changes in the NHS focus on reducing the money spent on administration, moving regional clinical decision-making into the hands of medics rather than business-managers, and actions such as combining two or more smaller practices into one larger facility, leading to significant savings on overheads etc. The changes are explicitly designed NOT to affect clinical care and staffing levels, despite what the nursing unions and certain elements of the press here would like the public to think.
I am aware of people travelling outwith the UK to seek specialist care in other centres of excellence, as per my earlier post, but I'd be astonished if that choice had really been made because of a delay in treatment for cancer, of all things. Elective and non-emergency treatments regularly get bumped to prioritise critical treatments - that's where the majority of public dissatisfaction usually arises, and why some choose to purchase additional private insurance. As for giving birth in an ambulance, I'm fairly sure that occurs in countries with non-socialised medical care as well. The fact that we are taxed at source for our healthcare doesn't make us any better or worse at predicting labour progression or at predicting how many women are going to go into labour at any given time!
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
Edited to add: In referring to patients travelling overseas because of delays in treatment, you may have been referring to the NHS policy of having critical patients treated outside their home region, or abroad if necessary, if waiting lists in their home area are too long for the problem at hand. The NHS still pays for this treatment. I must confess I had forgotten about this policy until I just double-checked something else, but wouldn't you say that's an example of putting health-care for the individual first - something that seems to concern a lot of US commentators.
By the way, your figures on the cuts are somewhat odd, given the current government's pledge to increase NHS budgets in England year-on-year until the end of this parliament (probably in 2015). £31bn (out of a budget well over £100 billion) may be the figure the government believes it is possible to save through efficiency measures, not an actual cut imposed. Where are you getting your figures from?
I provided a link to where I got that figure from earlier. It was from a Forbes article.
How is denying people care because of cost anymore humane than the US system? Plus this has been going on long before the financial crisis. There was a lawsuit brought up in 2008 concerning breast cancer patients not receiving the care the needed. This lawsuit goes back to 1997, long before the financial meltdown.
This article illustrates much of the problems with socialized medicine.
Cancer sufferers forced to buy their own drugs are planning to sue the NHS for compensation.
Hundreds of patients had to pay for treatment after NHS chiefs ruled that new pills that might improve or extend their lives were not 'cost effective'.
But many are now demanding refunds from the health service after spending tens of thousands of pounds. At least three London trusts have been targeted by patients making compensation claims, an investigation by the Evening Standard has found.
Bearing the cost: Adam Griffin, with sister Amy, was forced to raise the money to pay for the drug Erbitux to treat his bowel cancer when health bosses ruled the NHS would not fund the treatment
Bearing the cost: Adam Griffin, with sister Amy, was forced to raise the money to pay for the drug Erbitux to treat his bowel cancer when health bosses ruled the NHS would not fund the treatment
In the first known case of its kind, one trust has been forced to refund a patient for a drug it initially refused to buy.
Experts warn the NHS is facing a series of legal battles as families fight to recover the huge sums they have spent on buying drugs privately. The move comes amid a growing row over access to life-enhancing treatment and anger over the Government's policy of denying 'top-up' treatments.
More...
Warning for bone victims: Thousands to be denied treatment under new NHS guidelines
Purple 'super tomato' that can fight against cancer
Current rules mean patients cannot mix NHS care with private care even with drugs not available on the NHS.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson this weekend signalled he may reverse the policy within weeks. But the Uturn comes too late for many who have paid for private treatment, and raises the prospect they will seek to recover their money.
Patients in Bromley, Hillingdon and Wandsworth have already requested refunds. A course of Avastin for colon cancer costs up to £70,000 a year per patient, while Erbitux, used to treat bowel cancer, can cost up to £60,000.
Bromley PCT has compensated one patient for drugs which it originally refused to fund. Other claims include a kidney cancer patient who asked for a refund from Hillingdon PCT.
The claimant personally funded a cycle of treatment with the lifeextending drug Sorafenib.
The PCT has refused the request, but could face other claims as a number of patients have made 'inquiries' about refunds. Wandsworth PCT has also received a written
request for a refund. It comes after the PCT admitted court action is inevitable from patients who have been denied cancer drugs.
Ian Reynolds, chairman of Wandsworth PCT, said: 'We're being sent bills by people turned down by exceptional treatment panels and who have then gone private. We're not liable to pay but the reality is that these claims will now end up in court.'
Katherine Murphy from the Patients' Association said: 'It's quite unforgivable to deny someone their right to a treatment which a clinician says could save their life.'
£55,000, BUT ADAM DIDN'T SURVIVE
When Adam Griffin was diagnosed with bowel cancer at the age of 29 health bosses would not pay for his life-extending medication, telling him he was not an 'exceptional' case. Instead, the graphic designer and his friends and family embarked on a fund-raising drive to raise £55,000 to pay for the drug Erbitux.
They raised £80,000, but Adam, who lived in Twickenham, took the drug for two months before he died in December last year. His sister Amy, 30, of Dulwich Village, said: 'We had to give the NHS £55,000 before they gave him the medication. They will not start treatment until you have given them the full amount.
'Adam didn't want his family to have to pay because it would have meant remortgaging the house. The only way he was happy to pay was through fund-raising,' she added.
'The drugs do not cost that much, but patients then have to pay for everything else privately.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1080864/Three-NHS-trusts-sued-cancer-sufferers-pay-life-saving-drugs.html#ixzz1zC7TGPKg
Our system isn't perfect and is in need or reform, but it needs to be market based, not government.0 -
Seen this:
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.
Actually no it's not... :indifferent: It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything... :grumble: Why can't there be differing schools of thought without it being boiled down to well such and such group hates poor/sick/other adjective that pulls at the heart strings people and well such and such group hates freedom/liberty/any other adjective that alludes to the "American way".... perhaps if we quit saying crap like this then maybe would could actually find a solution that works for (almost) everyone.... *sigh* I feel like that unless everyone subscribes to the same thought process and opinions that those that differ are all evil... and I feel this way regardless of which party or political way of thinking one is a part of.... It's crap like this that I hate our two party system... the whole us vs. them mentality that should be saved for College Football...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
It's not an entirely unjustified point of view miss. Just sayin'.0 -
A very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html0 -
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.
Actually no it's not... :indifferent: It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything... :grumble: Why can't there be differing schools of thought without it being boiled down to well such and such group hates poor/sick/other adjective that pulls at the heart strings people and well such and such group hates freedom/liberty/any other adjective that alludes to the "American way".... perhaps if we quit saying crap like this then maybe would could actually find a solution that works for (almost) everyone.... *sigh* I feel like that unless everyone subscribes to the same thought process and opinions that those that differ are all evil... and I feel this way regardless of which party or political way of thinking one is a part of.... It's crap like this that I hate our two party system... the whole us vs. them mentality that should be saved for College Football...
"Some"
It says so much for one person, so little for another.0 -
Seen this:
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.
Actually no it's not... :indifferent: It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything... :grumble: Why can't there be differing schools of thought without it being boiled down to well such and such group hates poor/sick/other adjective that pulls at the heart strings people and well such and such group hates freedom/liberty/any other adjective that alludes to the "American way".... perhaps if we quit saying crap like this then maybe would could actually find a solution that works for (almost) everyone.... *sigh* I feel like that unless everyone subscribes to the same thought process and opinions that those that differ are all evil... and I feel this way regardless of which party or political way of thinking one is a part of.... It's crap like this that I hate our two party system... the whole us vs. them mentality that should be saved for College Football...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
It's not an entirely unjustified point of view miss. Just sayin'.
Sorry can't watch Youtube... But if it's a bunch of protestors nicely edited or questioned/provoked just so to look uneducated... or even if they really are... it doesn't mean much to me... because the majority of the debate isn't happening on the streets... it's happening in places like this, in offices, in homes, schools, places where arguments cannot be reduced to what a Sharpie and some Poster board can handle...0 -
No-one is saying that the NHS et al don't have problems also, just that they offer over-all a more rational and, dare I say it, humane approach than the current US model appears to.
I think it's the "rational" and "humane" parts that some people find so objectionable.
Actually no it's not... :indifferent: It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything... :grumble: Why can't there be differing schools of thought without it being boiled down to well such and such group hates poor/sick/other adjective that pulls at the heart strings people and well such and such group hates freedom/liberty/any other adjective that alludes to the "American way".... perhaps if we quit saying crap like this then maybe would could actually find a solution that works for (almost) everyone.... *sigh* I feel like that unless everyone subscribes to the same thought process and opinions that those that differ are all evil... and I feel this way regardless of which party or political way of thinking one is a part of.... It's crap like this that I hate our two party system... the whole us vs. them mentality that should be saved for College Football...
"Some"
It says so much for one person, so little for another.
Sorry, missed the "some" part, but even still, while you might state some... there are others that state most or all...0 -
A very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
Great article - that's a keeper0 -
I think I'm going to go find some more caffeine now..... :flowerforyou:0
-
... It's just that there might actually be differing opinions on how to make healthcare more accessible (including but not limited to affordablity) without forcing anyone to buy anything...
If we truly had universal healthcare, no one would have to buy anything. Yes, everyone would have to pay into the system, the same way we pay for the military, social security, etc. But there would be no commercial products that anyone would have to buy. This is by far a better approach than propping up the corrupt and (yes, I'm going to say it) completely freaking *EVIL* health insurance industry. But for now, we're stuck with an imperfect solution, which is far better than having done nothing at all.0 -
[/quote] [/quote]
Seen this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
It's not an entirely unjustified point of view miss. Just sayin'.
Sorry can't watch Youtube... But if it's a bunch of protestors nicely edited or questioned/provoked just so to look uneducated... or even if they really are... it doesn't mean much to me... because the majority of the debate isn't happening on the streets... it's happening in places like this, in offices, in homes, schools, places where arguments cannot be reduced to what a Sharpie and some Poster board can handle...
It's not one of those, I don't watch porn. Those edited things are just cherry picking - "Talk to 100 people - 94 of them are reasonable folks with a point of view - 6 are idiots and/or monsters - USE THOSE - paint the whole group as idiotic monsters". Not fair, not cool, and not accurate. I don't like them either, from either side.
This was the vid of one of the Republican primary debates where the question came up about an uninsured young man with cancer, and what should be done about situations like that - and some members of the audience screamed out "Let Him Die!!!".
Yes, it was just a few, and probably less than 5% of the folks in that audience feel that way, but still a fair and unedited clip. We were talking about why folks who are so resistant to health care reform get called uncaring,,, and crap like that vid are part of it.0 -
I concur. Everybody (both sides) should read that. It's not simple, is it?
Great article - that's a keeperA very interesting take.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html0
