Universal Health Care - JSYK: UPDATE Last Page

[chobie]

No, I said what I thought based on facts as I understand them, and you took issue with that, end of story.

I didn't take issue with your opinion. I asked for stats to back it up. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed.

 

[mnrose]

I know my request may have been missed, but you asserted earlier than there are "age restrictions" for some treatments under the ACA....that older Americans are going to be restricted in receiving treatments. I've seen this claim thrown out by lots of groups/organizations who are opposed to the ACA, but other than this sort of propoganda, I've never seen anyone actually cite a provision of the ACA or the implementing regulations. Do you have citations?

You can't make outrageous claims like that, and then simply walk away saying that we have to do the work for you. It's your claim. Back it up, or I'm going to conclude it isn't true.

 

[epcot.girl]

I live in the UK. Yes, I love the NHS. The only times I have ever had to wait for treatment was when there was no emergency/time crunch. Same for everyone I know. When something like cancer is suspected (i.e. when time is of the essence) you're seen ASAP.

All contraception is free. All appointments are free. All scans, prescriptions (where I live in the UK), hospital stays, routine cancer screenings and everything else - all free at point of contact. GP appointments are made on the morning of the day I need to be seen. If this isn't good enough, one can always take out private health insurance and you may get quicker treatment for unnecessary/non-emergency procedures but it won't, for example, get you skipped to the front of a transplant list.

I admit I don't know the difference in tax between the US and the UK, but I'd be interested to know how the combined cost of insurance (that would provide the same level of unlimited health cover as in the UK) in addition to the tax paid in the US compares to tax paid in the UK. Not interested enough to be inclined to work it out though! And on top of that, NHS care is available in the UK regardless of employment status. It's nice to know I'll never have to make a career/job choice based (at least in part) on health coverage.

But I understand US culture is very different. What works in the UK won't necessarily be right for the US.

 

[cheer25mom]

I know my request may have been missed, but you asserted earlier than there are "age restrictions" for some treatments under the ACA....that older Americans are going to be restricted in receiving treatments. I've seen this claim thrown out by lots of groups/organizations who are opposed to the ACA, but other than this sort of propoganda, I've never seen anyone actually cite a provision of the ACA or the implementing regulations. Do you have citations? You can't make outrageous claims like that, and then simply walk away saying that we have to do the work for you. It's your claim. Back it up, or I'm going to conclude it isn't true.

Conclude whatever you want. I don't see how the idea that delay in treatment could result in higher death rate is "outrageous". As for the age restrictions, I read it on an article summarizing the ACA somewhere. As I recall, they did quote the text of the act. I will see if I can find it, but my grandmother is dealing with it now, or at least her insurance company's interpretation of it. She is not getting coverage for her b12 or some of her maintenance drugs since her provider instituted changes on advance of Obamacare. Those same meds are covered for those under 65.

 

[chobie]

Conclude whatever you want. I don't see how the idea that delay in treatment could result in higher death rate is "outrageous". As for the age restrictions, I read it on an article summarizing the ACA somewhere. As I recall, they did quote the text of the act. I will see if I can find it, but my grandmother is dealing with it now, or at least her insurance company's interpretation of it. She is not getting coverage for her b12 or some of her maintenance drugs since her provider instituted changes on advance of Obamacare. Those same meds are covered for those under 65.

You're just full of anecdotal evidence.

 

[mnrose]

Conclude whatever you want. I don't see how the idea that delay in treatment could result in higher death rate is "outrageous". As for the age restrictions, I read it on an article summarizing the ACA somewhere. As I recall, they did quote the text of the act. I will see if I can find it, but my grandmother is dealing with it now, or at least her insurance company's interpretation of it. She is not getting coverage for her b12 or some of her maintenance drugs since her provider instituted changes on advance of Obamacare. Those same meds are covered for those under 65.

Just FYI. Medicare has NEVER covered "preventative" use of B12 injections. There are some diseases for which it is covered, and those continue to be covered. Under 65 is generally not covered by Medicare, and therefore is governed by the terms of whatever insurance you have. The ACA has nothing whatsoever to do with what any given insurer will or will not cover. Did a quick check of our policy, and gee, lo and behold, preventative use of B12 is not covered (and I'm not 65). I guess I'll go stomp my feet and demand my insurer cover it (not even sure what it's used for) because someone on the DIS said it was. I'm sure that will be persuasive. Just like your claims to the contrary are persuasive to me.

 

[Sanchez]

I live in the UK. Yes, I love the NHS. The only times I have ever had to wait for treatment was when there was no emergency/time crunch. Same for everyone I know. When something like cancer is suspected (i.e. when time is of the essence) you're seen ASAP.

All contraception is free. All appointments are free. All scans, prescriptions (where I live in the UK), hospital stays, routine cancer screenings and everything else - all free at point of contact. GP appointments are made on the morning of the day I need to be seen. If this isn't good enough, one can always take out private health insurance and you may get quicker treatment for unnecessary/non-emergency procedures but it won't, for example, get you skipped to the front of a transplant list.

I admit I don't know the difference in tax between the US and the UK, but I'd be interested to know how the combined cost of insurance (that would provide the same level of unlimited health cover as in the UK) in addition to the tax paid in the US compares to tax paid in the UK. Not interested enough to be inclined to work it out though! And on top of that, NHS care is available in the UK regardless of employment status. It's nice to know I'll never have to make a career/job choice based (at least in part) on health coverage.

But I understand US culture is very different. What works in the UK won't necessarily be right for the US.

This is a difficult issue. I am not against the idea of a government operated program. In theory it would do what an insurance program purports to do (spread the risk) without the end goal of profit. In practice I see three major problems:

Firstly, our federal government is wholly incapable of managing such a program (this is separate from the argument of whether this should be a function of our federal government.) Can you envision the number of pet projects and significant corruption and graft as elected officials fight for dollars to come to their respective states? Canada and the UK may be better equipped in this area.

Secondly, somewhat related to the first is that based on history we would ask the few to carry the burden of the many in such a program. In a matter as important as health care it would seem reasonable to have contributions from all. Politically, this would be unlikely. The solvency of such a program in the U.S. is unlikely.

Thirdly, I question whether a comprehensive federal program would temper medical and scientific research in the private sector. This is a complex question and I certainly do not have enough knowledge to form an opinion.

It seems as if the best way to implement such programs would be at the state level. Implementation and funding could be easier managed at this level and programs could be tailored for each state's need.

 

[cheer25mom]

Just FYI. Medicare has NEVER covered "preventative" use of B12 injections. There are some diseases for which it is covered, and those continue to be covered. Under 65 is generally not covered by Medicare, and therefore is governed by the terms of whatever insurance you have. The ACA has nothing whatsoever to do with what any given insurer will or will not cover. Did a quick check of our policy, and gee, lo and behold, preventative use of B12 is not covered (and I'm not 65). I guess I'll go stomp my feet and demand my insurer cover it (not even sure what it's used for) because someone on the DIS said it was. I'm sure that will be persuasive. Just like your claims to the contrary are persuasive to me.

Not taking about Medicare, and the b12 is not preventative, but medically necessary per her physician. She is no longer covered on maintenance medications that those under 65 are. You make a LOT of assumptions here. She is on private plan that used to cover these things but no longer does. Their reasoning when questioned was that once the ACA went into effect they would no longer be covered.

 

[Domo]

I live in the UK. Yes, I love the NHS. The only times I have ever had to wait for treatment was when there was no emergency/time crunch. Same for everyone I know. When something like cancer is suspected (i.e. when time is of the essence) you're seen ASAP.

All contraception is free. All appointments are free. All scans, prescriptions (where I live in the UK), hospital stays, routine cancer screenings and everything else - all free at point of contact. GP appointments are made on the morning of the day I need to be seen. If this isn't good enough, one can always take out private health insurance and you may get quicker treatment for unnecessary/non-emergency procedures but it won't, for example, get you skipped to the front of a transplant list.

I admit I don't know the difference in tax between the US and the UK, but I'd be interested to know how the combined cost of insurance (that would provide the same level of unlimited health cover as in the UK) in addition to the tax paid in the US compares to tax paid in the UK. Not interested enough to be inclined to work it out though! And on top of that, NHS care is available in the UK regardless of employment status. It's nice to know I'll never have to make a career/job choice based (at least in part) on health coverage.

But I understand US culture is very different. What works in the UK won't necessarily be right for the US.

Hear, hear!

 

[chobie]

Hear, hear!

Oh another British person praising your SOCIALIST healthcare? Well your opinion is for naught. Only anecdotal evidence counts. And besides, are you sure you're even still alive? I mean you have socialist health care.

 

[Domo]

Oh another British person praising your SOCIALIST healthcare? Well your opinion is for naught. Only anecdotal evidence counts. And besides, are you sure you're even still alive? I mean you have socialist health care.

 

[mnrose]

Not taking about Medicare, and the b12 is not preventative, but medically necessary per her physician. She is no longer covered on maintenance medications that those under 65 are. You make a LOT of assumptions here. She is on private plan that used to cover these things but no longer does. Their reasoning when questioned was that once the ACA went into effect they would no longer be covered.

Her issue is with her insurance company. One thing I've discovered is that each employer and insurer determines what is covered. There is NOTHING in the ACA which addresses this one little bit, and this insurance company is flat out lying if they claim that is the reason. Indeed, if she was, in fact, told that this drug is "only" covered for people under age 65, and not for older Americans, because of the ACA then I would encourage her to run to the nearest insurance commission office and file a complaint. Or, if covered by a union insurance plan, the nearest US Labor and Employment office (which are currently closed, but once they open). It would be without a doubt unlawful.

Still waiting for anyone to point me to any provision of the ACA that would deny treatment to older Americans......

 

[mnrose]

Not taking about Medicare, and the b12 is not preventative, but medically necessary per her physician. She is no longer covered on maintenance medications that those under 65 are. You make a LOT of assumptions here. She is on private plan that used to cover these things but no longer does. Their reasoning when questioned was that once the ACA went into effect they would no longer be covered.

Another thing....if your grandmother is over 65 (as you seem to suggest), she is surely on either Medicare or Medicare Replacement. I know of no private insurer who will be anything other than secondary to Medicare. It's just the way it works. Medicare Advantage (the "name" for Medicare Replacement) is supposed to cover exactly what Medicare covers. My father had this kind of insurance, and I found the private company which administered his Medicare Advantage plan to be a major pain in the neck, and often incorrect in their interpretations of Medicare policies/procedures. We went back to Medicare with a Supplemental Plan (to help my Dad pay for those things, co-pays, etc, not covered by Medicare).

 

[NFLDERS]

Sorry Domo this was meant for the poster you replied to.


chobie:
Wow! Just Wow!

A Canadian Socialist Health Care beneficiary here. You do know fish are food for the brain? Not just "Friends not to be eaten!" as your profile states. . .

 

[abdmom]

Life expectancies in Canada, the UK, rest of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and a few others are all higher than the US. The US ranks about 33rd.

My dh and my df both died of incurable cancers. My father lived longer than the average person with his cancer and was reasonably healthy and lived at home until the day before he died. He travelled and did all the things he wanted to do. This was in Canada. My dh lived as long as the average for his cancer. He was treated so aggressively that he had to stay in hospital for almost the entire 5 months after diagnosis. He was unable to eat. He was so drugged he couldn't carry on a conversation or stay awake for more than a few minutes at a time. He was miserable. This was in the US. I know which system I prefer.

 

[cheer25mom]

Oh another British person praising your SOCIALIST healthcare? Well your opinion is for naught. Only anecdotal evidence counts. And besides, are you sure you're even still alive? I mean you have socialist health care.

Very mature. Really? I think you are actually the first one to use the word socialist here.

 

[cheer25mom]

Another thing....if your grandmother is over 65 (as you seem to suggest), she is surely on either Medicare or Medicare Replacement. I know of no private insurer who will be anything other than secondary to Medicare. It's just the way it works. Medicare Advantage (the "name" for Medicare Replacement) is supposed to cover exactly what Medicare covers. My father had this kind of insurance, and I found the private company which administered his Medicare Advantage plan to be a major pain in the neck, and often incorrect in their interpretations of Medicare policies/procedures. We went back to Medicare with a Supplemental Plan (to help my Dad pay for those things, co-pays, etc, not covered by Medicare).

That's correct, it was her secondary insurer that told her these things are no longer covered per the ACA.

 

[ronandannette]

Citation please? And, not to a synopsis done by any group opposed to the ACA, but rather citation to the ACTUAL law or regulations promulgated thereunder. Thank you.

(I do know that the ACA allows personal physicians to charge for an "end of life" care discussion with their patients....if this is what you are talking about, consider that the law only pays physicians for that which they should be doing anyway. No one is mandating what that end of life care should be, but rather that we should ALL have a plan in place for what we want/don't want. Do you want a ventilator, breathing tube, DNR order, etc. Going through this now with my elderly father...I don't care WHAT he chooses, just that he chooses. Otherwise, we, his children, are left to guess on what care he might want. I know many opposed to the law have twisted this into "death panels", but it is far from it. Let's face it, we are ALL going to die. Every one of us....even those on the DIS. We all deserve to have the end of life care that we want. For some of us, that will be pull out all the stops and do everything so long as there is the tiniest glimmer of a chance of recovery. Others will say "let me go." My husband and I have quite specific end of life provisions in a living trust, and have had since we were in our early 30's. I'm personally thrilled that steps are being taken to ensure that we all give meaningful thought to this.....in advance.)

OP here. You may find it interesting that once we are finally able to get an accurate prognosis and treatment recommendations, my sister and I, who share joint-guardianship of my brother, will seriously consider declining anything other than symptoms management and comfort measures. If we do this we will have to appear before the Medical Ethics board of our local health region to justify our decision.

While access is slow, it is certainly not "rationed" under our system; our brother is both elderly and profoundly mentally-handicapped. It is expected (at least by every health care provider we have talked to so far) that we will without question submit him to every possible measure no matter how traumatic. Every available resource will be at his/our disposal. We have some hard choices to make and the worst part is not being able to make them due to the present lack of information.

 

[Geoff_M]

Life expectancies in Canada, the UK, rest of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and a few others are all higher than the US. The US ranks about 33rd.

But if you look at the links provided in post #55 of this thread, you'll see that you'll need to factor into that the fact that the USA far exceeds those countries in mortality due to transportation accidents, is #1 in adult obesity, and is above average in suicides, heart disease, other factors (homicide rates, anyone?)... all of which negatively impact life expectancy. Which shows again, that this issue is a lot more complex than pointing to "this" stat, or "that" one.

 

[Planogirl]

But if you look at the links provided in post #55 of this thread, you'll see that you'll need to factor into that the fact that the USA far exceeds those countries in mortality due to transportation accidents, is #1 in adult obesity, and is above average in suicides, heart disease, other factors (homicide rates, anyone?)... all of which negatively impact life expectancy. Which shows again, that this issue is a lot more complex and pointing to "this" stat, or "that" one.

ITA. This is particularly true when some of those things you listed could involve healthcare (or a lack thereof).