71% Mo. voters reject key provision of health care law

1…6781012

Comments

  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    scb wrote:
    I got this letter at work today from one of our three major private health insurance companies / hospitals. Seems somewhat topical.
    Dear Healthcare Providers:

    ...Effective July 26, 2010, all members/patients who enter the Emergency Department at [Our] Hospital will receive a medical screening exam to determine their appropriate level of care. Patients with conditions that are not emergencies will be directed to an onsite patient navigator, who will make an appointment for patients to be seen quickly in a primary care provider's office or refer patients to urgent care if the primary care provider appointment is not timely enough.

    If members/patients still wish to be treated in the Emergency Department after being informed that their condition is not an emergency, they will be required to pay for services at the time of treatment. Under these circumstances, the health plan will not likely reimburse the member if they have health insurance coverage....
    capitalism at work
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Commy wrote:
    capitalism at work

    Healthcare is a prime example of when the US should stop being afraid of the word 'socialism' and start embracing it (in it's mildest form so as not to scare them!).
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    redrock wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    Health insurance isn't healthcare, necessarily.
    It's only health care if the insurance company actually decides to cover you.
    And that's not 100% guaranteed.

    Exactly.

    My husband suffered a massive brain hemorrhage a couple of years back (aged 49). You may read from some of my other posts that my husband had, and still continues to have, incedible care via a National healthcare system. We did not have to fork out any money for his care (and still don't). Financially, as a family we are OK. Naturally we struggle as my husband was the main bread winner and the loss of his salary is really felt. But we're OK. We have our home, my kid can still have her music lessons, my husband can continue his rehab, etc. Same thing happened to an aquaintance in the US (though not as bad). Well covered by insurances, etc. Well... so he/his family thought. A stroke/brain hemorrhage can be caused by high blood pressure. Though he was never diagnosed with it (how many people are?), the insurances didn't pay because it was a pre-existing condition/possibly hereditary. The reason they didn't pay is that they looked at his parents' health history and it turned that at one time, his father took a daily blood pressure tablet (low dose), though he was no longer on these tablets. When filling in the forms, this person was not aware of it. His parents live in a different country and don't really discuss minor medication they take at any time of their life but the insurance company did checks. Though he tried to argue this, the insurance companies considered this non-disclosure (therefore the pre-existing condition) and refused to pay. He lost his home, he can't afford rehab (occupational therapist, physio, speech therapists), he still can't work and a family of 5 who was really well off are now living at poverty level. Can you see the difference between his situation and my husband's?

    This should NOT happen in a country like the US. Maybe if american health was taken a bit more seriously, there would be less people relying on benefits. Healthcare isn't a luxury and it should be available equally to all, regardless of ability to purchase cover.


    So those who think they have all angles covered... don't be so sure.
    Why are you comparing your countires population to ours??? You have as many people in your county as we do in Misouri.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,068
    HeidiJam wrote:
    redrock wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    Health insurance isn't healthcare, necessarily.
    It's only health care if the insurance company actually decides to cover you.
    And that's not 100% guaranteed.

    Exactly.

    My husband suffered a massive brain hemorrhage a couple of years back (aged 49). You may read from some of my other posts that my husband had, and still continues to have, incedible care via a National healthcare system. We did not have to fork out any money for his care (and still don't). Financially, as a family we are OK. Naturally we struggle as my husband was the main bread winner and the loss of his salary is really felt. But we're OK. We have our home, my kid can still have her music lessons, my husband can continue his rehab, etc. Same thing happened to an aquaintance in the US (though not as bad). Well covered by insurances, etc. Well... so he/his family thought. A stroke/brain hemorrhage can be caused by high blood pressure. Though he was never diagnosed with it (how many people are?), the insurances didn't pay because it was a pre-existing condition/possibly hereditary. The reason they didn't pay is that they looked at his parents' health history and it turned that at one time, his father took a daily blood pressure tablet (low dose), though he was no longer on these tablets. When filling in the forms, this person was not aware of it. His parents live in a different country and don't really discuss minor medication they take at any time of their life but the insurance company did checks. Though he tried to argue this, the insurance companies considered this non-disclosure (therefore the pre-existing condition) and refused to pay. He lost his home, he can't afford rehab (occupational therapist, physio, speech therapists), he still can't work and a family of 5 who was really well off are now living at poverty level. Can you see the difference between his situation and my husband's?

    This should NOT happen in a country like the US. Maybe if american health was taken a bit more seriously, there would be less people relying on benefits. Healthcare isn't a luxury and it should be available equally to all, regardless of ability to purchase cover.


    So those who think they have all angles covered... don't be so sure.
    Why are you comparing your countires population to ours??? You have as many people in your county as we do in Misouri.
    why are you not answering the very legitimate questions asked of you? redrock is speaking from her experiences with her nationalized healthcare. for you to imply that she can have no opinion because she is in a different country would be like me telling you that since you do not live here in missouri like i do that you can't have an opinion either...and she is damn right to point out that this health care situation we have in the US should not be happening here in a country like ours....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    why are you not answering the very legitimate questions asked of you? redrock is speaking from her experiences with her nationalized healthcare. for you to imply that she can have no opinion because she is in a different country would be like me telling you that since you do not live here in missouri like i do that you can't have an opinion either...and she is damn right to point out that this health care situation we have in the US should not be happening here in a country like ours....
    And I agree with her point. But its silly saying that since it works somewhere, it will automatically work somewhere else when there is such a huge difference in population.
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    HediJam - you ever gonna post any backup for your claims about healthcare costs or insurance being affordable?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,068
    HeidiJam wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    why are you not answering the very legitimate questions asked of you? redrock is speaking from her experiences with her nationalized healthcare. for you to imply that she can have no opinion because she is in a different country would be like me telling you that since you do not live here in missouri like i do that you can't have an opinion either...and she is damn right to point out that this health care situation we have in the US should not be happening here in a country like ours....
    And I agree with her point. But its silly saying that since it works somewhere, it will automatically work somewhere else when there is such a huge difference in population.
    have you ever heard of the concept of generalization?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    FiveB247x wrote:
    HediJam - you ever gonna post any backup for your claims about healthcare costs or insurance being affordable?
    No, I don't have any back up information. I was ignorant on the topic of insurance being affordable. The points I really wanted to address was healthcare being a right. For a while there I was just arguing to agure. But I still stand in my opinion that We deem what is affordable by our actions and decisions through life. We all have the means to get educations, and choosing the field in which we study. I don't think blaming other people for things that are in yoru control, such as education, jobs, etc.. is the right way to solve the problem.
    Also I think there something missing form those stats. I didn't see anything about the automobile and airline industry that had all those lay offs, and those companies were carrying 100% health care insurance for their employees. As that could skew the stats.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    why are you not answering the very legitimate questions asked of you? redrock is speaking from her experiences with her nationalized healthcare. for you to imply that she can have no opinion because she is in a different country would be like me telling you that since you do not live here in missouri like i do that you can't have an opinion either...and she is damn right to point out that this health care situation we have in the US should not be happening here in a country like ours....
    And I agree with her point. But its silly saying that since it works somewhere, it will automatically work somewhere else when there is such a huge difference in population.
    have you ever heard of the concept of generalization?
    No, can you tell me about it, and how it applys?
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    100% employer paid insurance is a very rare thing in our nation - see figure 2 in this link. (http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall02/healthInsurance1.html)

    Also, and we've discussed this previously, but your assertion that everyone has the economic mobility is not practical or realistic. It's got nothing to do with simple want, desire laziness, but more so a reflection of our system and society working through it's mechanisms. The middle class has been shrinking for decades as well as the economic polarization between the rich and poorer has grown to some of the highest levels since the turn of the 20th century. Your assertion doesn't take into account for these hard line facts, but merely oversimplifies the general problems while playing blame on those on the wrong end of the deal. I am sure there's plenty of abuse of the system as you allude too, no one denies that part, but to pass all of it off to such, is not looking at the whole picture as these results have been occurring for decades now.
    HeidiJam wrote:
    No, I don't have any back up information. I was ignorant on the topic of insurance being affordable. The points I really wanted to address was healthcare being a right. For a while there I was just arguing to agure. But I still stand in my opinion that We deem what is affordable by our actions and decisions through life. We all have the means to get educations, and choosing the field in which we study. I don't think blaming other people for things that are in yoru control, such as education, jobs, etc.. is the right way to solve the problem.
    Also I think there something missing form those stats. I didn't see anything about the automobile and airline industry that had all those lay offs, and those companies were carrying 100% health care insurance for their employees. As that could skew the stats.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    If you can't take a sample/example and apply it in the same fashion to other groups (larger or smaller), everything we know in the world wouldn't be as it is. Economics, global development, finance, exportation of beliefs, customs, rights or even democracy in practice... none of it would be relevant because you're not comparing it to the same exact group. So in sum, it's always relevant and provides for data to compare, contrast, learn or experience from.
    HeidiJam wrote:
    No, can you tell me about it, and how it applys?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    edited August 2010
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Why are you comparing your countires population to ours???
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    why are you not answering the very legitimate questions asked of you? redrock is speaking from her experiences with her nationalized healthcare. for you to imply that she can have no opinion because she is in a different country would be like me telling you that since you do not live here in missouri like i do that you can't have an opinion either...and she is damn right to point out that this health care situation we have in the US should not be happening here in a country like ours....
    HeidiJam wrote:
    And I agree with her point. But its silly saying that since it works somewhere, it will automatically work somewhere else when there is such a huge difference in population.
    Umm... did I compare populations? I compared two actual cases and I compared healthcare provisions but populations????
    When I say a country like the US, I am saying any western, 'civilised' country. As I mentioned, the USA is the RICHEST country. Also, I did not state that it will automatically work, did I? There is no reason for it not to work. The population count doesn't matter. All numbers are relative. I guess you will say it will be a much bigger cost to the government - of course, but there are also a lot more people paying taxes. The number of people needed to administer such a system should be similar from a % of population point of view to another country. The infrastructure (ie hospitals, etc) is there, in relation to population. Sure there could always be more hospitals, doctors, etc. but that has nothing to do with potentially implementing a nationalised healthcare system. Same principles as running a company - whether you have a small company of 200 employees or one of 2000, the basics are the same. One can extrapolate all ideas.

    Also, as I have mentioned before, I have lived in countries with both systems (yep... I lived in the US. Actually, I'm American!) so I can say I know what I talk about.
    Post edited by redrock on
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    have you ever heard of the concept of generalization?

    Heidijam knows generalisation. That's what he has been doing all through this thread. You know.. you're on benefits, you're lazy type thing...
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    redrock wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    have you ever heard of the concept of generalization?

    Heidijam knows generalisation. That's what he has been doing all through this thread. You know.. you're on benefits, you're lazy type thing...
    Compared to your generalizations "People that are on welfare are extremely hard working, and have just caught some bad breaks in life, but none of them were their fault".
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    HeidiJam wrote:
    redrock wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    have you ever heard of the concept of generalization?

    Heidijam knows generalisation. That's what he has been doing all through this thread. You know.. you're on benefits, you're lazy type thing...
    Compared to your generalizations "People that are on welfare are extremely hard working, and have just caught some bad breaks in life, but none of them were their fault".

    See... you just made that up. No one made such a generalisation. On the other hand....

    You're at lost of arguments :mrgreen:
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    redrock wrote:
    Umm... did I compare populations? I compared two actual cases and I compared healthcare provisions but populations????
    When I say a country like the US, I am saying any western, 'civilised' country. As I mentioned, the USA is the RICHEST country. Also, I did not state that it will automatically work, did I? There is no reason for it not to work. The population count doesn't matter. All numbers are relative. I guess you will say it will be a much bigger cost to the government - of course, but there are also a lot more people paying taxes. The number of people needed to administer such a system should be similar from a % of population point of view to another country. The infrastructure (ie hospitals, etc) is there, in relation to population. Sure there could always be more hospitals, doctors, etc. but that has nothing to do with potentially implementing a nationalised healthcare system. Same principles as running a company - whether you have a small company of 200 employees or one of 2000, the basics are the same. One can extrapolate all ideas.

    Also, as I have mentioned before, I have lived in countries with both systems (yep... I lived in the US. Actually, I'm American!) so I can say I know what I talk about.
    You don't know what you are tlaking about...You can't compare how things will work with such a population difference. Trains and trolly transit work very well over there, but if we tried to implement that into US it would never work.
    Reasons why I don't think it will work.
    1.The government has to tax some people to pay for medical subsidies offered to those it considers to be in need. So the first consequence is forced transfers of wealth from taxpayers to the clientele of programs like Medicare and Medicaid and this will inflate the demand for health care services. Offering free or heavily subsidized care is inevitably going to increase overall the use of the health care system.
    2.Everyone that paying taxes pays the higher prices caused by the inflation of demand for medical services, that with the increased costs of regulation and paperwork, as people are priced out of the system, they are forced into managed care systems that limit their choices of doctors/care
    3. The Doc's and Physicans are no longer working for you, they are working for the GOV.
    4. Its a loss of Freedom.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    redrock wrote:

    See... you just made that up. No one made such a generalisation. On the other hand....

    You're at lost of arguments :mrgreen:
    And i never said ALL are lazy so you made your's up. And I am not at a loss of arguements. Your stating one case and not taking into accout your population to our 300 million, and saying the system will work fine.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Heidijam - I won't quote your last post because it's just too much. Trains and trolleys :roll: Before you go off with those kinds of reasons, you REALLY need to educate yourself as to how universal healthcare actually works and is implemented. Many, many studies have been made on how it could be implemented in the USA - just google. Point 4 is particularly ludicrous.

    Edit: Looks like you got another post in before my reply, so it's not your last post that I'm referencing but the one before.
    HeidiJam wrote:
    .... and saying the system will work fine.
    **sighs** I said there was no reason for the system not to work. Not the same, is it? This is getting tiresome - try reading.
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    HeidiJam wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    HediJam - you ever gonna post any backup for your claims about healthcare costs or insurance being affordable?
    No, I don't have any back up information. I was ignorant on the topic of insurance being affordable. The points I really wanted to address was healthcare being a right. For a while there I was just arguing to agure. But I still stand in my opinion that We deem what is affordable by our actions and decisions through life. We all have the means to get educations, and choosing the field in which we study. I don't think blaming other people for things that are in yoru control, such as education, jobs, etc.. is the right way to solve the problem.
    Also I think there something missing form those stats. I didn't see anything about the automobile and airline industry that had all those lay offs, and those companies were carrying 100% health care insurance for their employees. As that could skew the stats.
    Everyone (almost) had access to public education, yes.
    But how many 75K a year jobs can you get with a high school diploma?
    Don't tell me everyone has the means for university, and even if they do not everyone can go and get a PHD.

    And anyways, why then should people have access to public education at all? They should have to pay for it (in your ideal world) and not have to rely on others to provide them with this "rite". What I don't understand is how you proclaim everyone has the means to education and should use their access to it in order to make themselves successful, ie. take advantage of their "rite" to education, but you blatantly argue that healthcare is the complete opposite.

    What's the difference between the "rite" to education and the "rite" to healthcare.

    And PS, no, not everyone has the means to education either.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    redrock wrote:
    Heidijam - I won't quote your last post because it's just too much. Trains and trolleys :roll: Before you go off with those kinds of reasons, you REALLY need to educate yourself as to how universal healthcare actually works and is implemented. Many, many studies have been made on how it could be implemented in the USA - just google. Point 4 is particularly ludicrous.

    Edit: Looks like you got another post in before my reply, so it's not your last post that I'm referencing but the one before.
    Trains and trolly systems, while we're on that topic, wouldn't work in the USA for the same reason healthcare wouldn't work (apparently) - and that is mindset.
    They could put in a awesome transit system in LA but no one would use it.
    Transit is for the "poor" and we all need our Hummers in North America.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam

Categories