yes i agree with you that doctors will order things that are harmful but that really doesn't have ,much to do with UHC or private insurance. i have had major health issues in the past ( the odds are i would not be approved for insurance if i lived in the states) and i went to many doctors to get advice and i believe that everyone should do that.
personally, i believe in UHC due to a simple reason, i don't believe that people should be deny health coverage.
People aren't. Many uninsureds elect not to carry it. Whether it's the expense of it or they feel they don't need it. Many more that that category doesn't cover does have insurance - it's called indigent care. And, other than the really poor, most anyone can afford a $150 well visit once a year (and I'm guessing most doctors would do it even cheaper if they understood circumstances). It's what we choose to spend money on.
I, too believe everyone should have access to care. But, even UHC doesn't do that equitably. Rich Canadians still come across the border to get care that would otherwise be delayed in their home country or pay premium to get access to private doctors.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
when you are right you are right...most people who think that universal isn't the way to go don't work with ma or medicare. Believe me I understand their apprehension into government run anything and this would be a monumentally huge change to our system as well as our economy(1/6th is healthcare related I believe)...and sure there is abuse and fraud, but there is private insurance fraud as well. Universal health care is better than what we have now for the patient. it is not better for medical research and development, it is not better for pharmaceutical businesses and it isn't better for insurance companies... So ultimately i see our quality of care degrading slightly overtime, but our ability to not have the people burdened with healthcare costs directly will be a much bigger positive.
Excuse me while I go throw up...I hate admitting a need for government run anything
The government needs to get out completely or get all in. Halfway isn't helping anyone
How is that acceptable? It is deplorable to me that a provider would be ok with this. Maybe, it's easier on providers - but that's not the goal. Our goal should be to provide the highest care possible. We need to improve there. But, removing competition will surely squash it as you - an advocate - readily admits.
If you could see the readmission rates for preventable occurences that are high in managed care, but even higher in indemnity plans (which gov't coverage would effectively be) - you would be appalled. How many CHF patient will the gov't call on a daily basis to make sure they haven't gained an inordinate amount of weight most likely due to the dangerous increase in fluids that, if caught early enough can be taken care of in the home rather than the ER which eventually leads to an unnecessary admission.
Those that talk positively of universal, government run health care are under informed of the realities of what health insurance/managed care companies do.
how do you rate care? is it my life expectancy? how about quality of life? Canada ha s a high life expectancy than America. Canada has been ranked second in according to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on quality of life.
secondly, it would not be the government who would be calling clients it still would be the doctors and nurses doing that. i think people have misconception of UHC. its not a perfect system but i do believe that it is better than what america has now.
yes i agree with you that doctors will order things that are harmful but that really doesn't have ,much to do with UHC or private insurance. i have had major health issues in the past ( the odds are i would not be approved for insurance if i lived in the states) and i went to many doctors to get advice and i believe that everyone should do that.
personally, i believe in UHC due to a simple reason, i don't believe that people should be deny health coverage.
People aren't. Many uninsureds elect not to carry it. Whether it's the expense of it or they feel they don't need it. Many more that that category doesn't cover does have insurance - it's called indigent care. And, other than the really poor, most anyone can afford a $150 well visit once a year (and I'm guessing most doctors would do it even cheaper if they understood circumstances). It's what we choose to spend money on.
I, too believe everyone should have access to care. But, even UHC doesn't do that equitably. Rich Canadians still come across the border to get care that would otherwise be delayed in their home country or pay premium to get access to private doctors.
i have had many people who i know who have been deny health coverage due to issues of past health.
I agree with you that canada system is not perfect. yes many rich Canadians do go to America but if you look at the system overall i believe you will see that it does do a better job. we are not looking for equitably we are looking for a balance. and right now i don't see that balance in America health care system.
i have had major health issues in the past ( the odds are i would not be approved for insurance if i lived in the states) ...
If you had employer based, managed care coverage, you cannot be denied insurance.
That's the misconception in this new law. While, yes, the above requires you find a job with health coverage - there are ways. And if you can't work at all, you'd probably be covered by Medicare (disability) or Medicaid (earnings threshhold) anyway.
That cannot deny coverage thing is a boondoggle. It really only applies to individual coverages, and all that's going to do is shoot rates through the roof for those currently with individual coveage already in order to cover these pre-existing people. There are better ways to go about that without whacking millions of people. The bill hurts more people than it helps.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i have had many people who i know who have been deny health coverage due to issues of past health.
I agree with you that canada system is not perfect. yes many rich Canadians do go to America but if you look at the system overall i believe you will see that it does do a better job. we are not looking for equitably we are looking for a balance. and right now i don't see that balance in America health care system.
No system will be perfect. I think we can all agree on that. I just think private companies, with proper oversight can do a more efficient job than the government with better outcomes for the patients.
I also think that where doctors have willingly partnered with the private companies (Think Keiser health plans), everyone's a winner and clinical outcomes are superior to just about any health care in the world. And that's an extremely closed/managed model. But, patients, doctors, and carrier all work together. It doesn't seem managed b/c all the doctors follow protocol and buy into the system. And that's the piece that's missing here. Doctors hate the companies, they pass that on to their patients, and it becomes a vicious cycle that winds up being bad for the patient.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i have had major health issues in the past ( the odds are i would not be approved for insurance if i lived in the states) ...
If you had employer based, managed care coverage, you cannot be denied insurance.
That's the misconception in this new law. While, yes, the above requires you find a job with health coverage - there are ways. And if you can't work at all, you'd probably be covered by Medicare (disability) or Medicaid (earnings threshhold) anyway.
That cannot deny coverage thing is a boondoggle. It really only applies to individual coverages, and all that's going to do is shoot rates through the roof for those currently with individual coveage already in order to cover these pre-existing people. There are better ways to go about that without whacking millions of people. The bill hurts more people than it helps.
I agree with most of what you said here and i am not a fan of this health care bill you have but for me its because it was a sell out bill.
I agree with most of what you said here and i am not a fan of this health care bill you have but for me its because it was a sell out bill.
This is also why Clinton(s) was smart enough to leave it alone. It's clear the majority doesn't want it. And it's not clear it will solve the problem (if I hear bend the cost curve one more time...). And then you wind up with an even worse non-compromise most of which will be repealed as soon as 1 term is out of office (if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down before then).
In actuality - Managed Care would be more efficient if Gov't gave it a backbone rather than caving to every wimpering person that comes along (I am not saying companies don't make mistakes they need to be held accountable for - just saying there are instances where gov't steps in for no good reason and drives up unnecessary costs).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
i have had many people who i know who have been deny health coverage due to issues of past health.
I agree with you that canada system is not perfect. yes many rich Canadians do go to America but if you look at the system overall i believe you will see that it does do a better job. we are not looking for equitably we are looking for a balance. and right now i don't see that balance in America health care system.
No system will be perfect. I think we can all agree on that. I just think private companies, with proper oversight can do a more efficient job than the government with better outcomes for the patients.
I also think that where doctors have willingly partnered with the private companies (Think Keiser health plans), everyone's a winner and clinical outcomes are superior to just about any health care in the world. And that's an extremely closed/managed model. But, patients, doctors, and carrier all work together. It doesn't seem managed b/c all the doctors follow protocol and buy into the system. And that's the piece that's missing here. Doctors hate the companies, they pass that on to their patients, and it becomes a vicious cycle that winds up being bad for the patient.
but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.
not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.
In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.
I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.
I agree with most of what you said here and i am not a fan of this health care bill you have but for me its because it was a sell out bill.
This is also why Clinton(s) was smart enough to leave it alone. It's clear the majority doesn't want it. And it's not clear it will solve the problem (if I hear bend the cost curve one more time...). And then you wind up with an even worse non-compromise most of which will be repealed as soon as 1 term is out of office (if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down before then).
In actuality - Managed Care would be more efficient if Gov't gave it a backbone rather than caving to every wimpering person that comes along (I am not saying companies don't make mistakes they need to be held accountable for - just saying there are instances where gov't steps in for no good reason and drives up unnecessary costs).
see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.
i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? :( are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?
not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.
In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.
I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.
completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.
but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.
Agreed - but, that's also why I think this option needs to be explored more. Quite honestly, some of it is. There's ifs in any system. It's just what are the ifs.
I work with some great doctors and nurses who would not only never deny necessary care, but go out of their way to make sure folks homes are safe for them and that they are taking care of themselves as best they can.
No gov't is going to do that. I'd much prefer to strive for that sort of care for as many people as possible (which considers expense) than settle for a system that everyone knows their hospital bills are paid, but has nobody helping them look out for their own good. We have a long way to go to undo the damage the media has done (this industry is not alone), but if the Feds would provide support instead of tearing it down for simplicity sake, we might have something (and btw, it is actually happening- NY State has a mandated managed care coverage - so if you a in a Medicaid plan, you must enroll in a managed care plan - why, do you suppose a liberal state like NY would do that? Bingo - it's cheaper and more efficient).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.
i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? :( are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?
No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.
Agreed - but, that's also why I think this option needs to be explored more. Quite honestly, some of it is. There's ifs in any system. It's just what are the ifs.
I work with some great doctors and nurses who would not only never deny necessary care, but go out of their way to make sure folks homes are safe for them and that they are taking care of themselves as best they can.
No gov't is going to do that. I'd much prefer to strive for that sort of care for as many people as possible (which considers expense) than settle for a system that everyone knows their hospital bills are paid, but has nobody helping them look out for their own good. We have a long way to go to undo the damage the media has done (this industry is not alone), but if the Feds would provide support instead of tearing it down for simplicity sake, we might have something (and btw, it is actually happening- NY State has a mandated managed care coverage - so if you a in a Medicaid plan, you must enroll in a managed care plan - why, do you suppose a liberal state like NY would do that? Bingo - it's cheaper and more efficient).
see again you are thinking that the government is going to be the one who will be doing the work which is not the case. the same doctors are going to providing the care not the government.
your idea sound good and i will try to read more about it.
not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.
In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.
I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.
fife answered better than I could, but who makes the death panel arguments? Politicians? Who cares? That's not the real reason. They just make that argument to pander to folks they are basically calling stupid (which is sort of funny that those same people are their biggest supporters).
Nobody believes there are death panels. But, what that refers to is the fact that some folks are denied care based on very real risk factors. Quite frankly - it is logical - you need knee replacement, but you're 90 years old - sorry - you don't get that. One of the things driving costs here is the US is much more sympathetic and insurance will cover that assuming no other mitigating circumstances. So, you replace a knee, the person dies 2 years later at the ripe old age of 92, and we have higher health care costs, so that person can have a better quality of life the last 2 years - I prefer that. Canada and the like does not. From an economic - benefits/risk analysis, I can't really argue with Canada's logic.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.
i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? :( are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?
No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.
ok, i understand, we get that here in Canada too. i am not a person who believes that the government should ever get involved in the actual care of a patient. that should be left between the doctors and the patient.
see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.
i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? :( are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?
No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.
ok, i understand, we get that here in Canada too. i am not a person who believes that the government should ever get involved in the actual care of a patient. that should be left between the doctors and the patient.
Have to run now. I'll be home later. Maybe, we can continue this. Thanks for the conversation. (Didn't want you to think I was just bagging out on you). Later.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Ummm..there are certain thresholds that have to be met to provide different levels of mental health care through Medicaid, all of which I think meet the professional consensus of necessary care and likely the consensus of the general public. Mental health providers do receive reviews, which I would say are more streamlined and expectations are way more clear with Medicaid than private health insurance. Of course, people want to hold on to their myths about how the government runs vs. the private industry.
Managed Care companies are regulated. They can only use guideliness that are publicly published. Are they more rigorous than the gov't? Definitely. But, why is that a bad thing? I have never seen a patient with the proper clinical diagnosis be turned down for service. That is the myth - that insurance companies are turning away patients that have meet criteria.
I've seen them essentially be turned away when they meet the criteria to be in residential treatment care, because nearly all the private insurance companies incorrectly apply the criteria for high acuity hospital care to residential treatment. Try and tell a parent of a kid who has severe behavioral problems that include threatening to kill the new baby, stealing, property destruction, lighting the cat on fire and stabbing the teacher with a pencil that their insurance approved them for 10 days of treatment instead of the 2 or 3 months recommended stay. They do that because they apply hospital criteria to clients, which is, if you haven't attempted to kill yourself or someone else or have been physically aggressive in the last week, you should go to the next lower level of care.
Plus, each insurance company has a different expectations, which only results in more wasted time jumping through the different hoops that each company has put out in front of you and doesn't improve care, it only takes away from it while providers talk on the phone with someone who has no knowledge of the client and fill out required paperwork.
What are you talking about? Every Managed Care company in the country covers Well visits. Every year? For a 40 year old they do. You are right. For a healthy 25 year old, they don't. So what? What healthy 25 year old goes for an ANNUAL well visit (other than women who actually do have it covered via an OB).
i absolutely know what i am talking about, and i am going to call bullshit right here.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...
i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..
well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
YAY!!!! That means MORE grandmothers and children with cancer will DIE!!!
GOODIEE!!!!!! BOY.. I BET YOU TEA Um... "PEOPLE" ARE PROUD OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!
WOW.... That means that any day now, your health insurance company will tell you "Sorry, we won't treat your car accident injuries... you had ACNE as a TEENAGER!!!"
completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.
Meh... I'm "rich" (-er than the average American) and live in America and I still got better services in Canada when I was making 40K a year.
Yes, I have an amazing personal doctor who answers my emails at 6 AM, but I also have a PPO that costs more per year than most people make in two months.
My last motorcycle accident when I went to an emergency room... I laid there for 3 hours begging for morphine before I even saw a doctor. The health care down in America... ain't so great.
my wife had hi blood pressure 6 fkn years ago right after birth of our daugher. hi blood pressure accompanying birth is VERY common. 6 years later she tries to get insurance and is turned down by 3 private insurers due to the infamous 'pre-existing condition' bullshit. sorry, your FKD!
our healthcare is shameful, try to improve it an out come the trolls. funny thing is 'obamacare' really resembles the gop healthcare reform plans of years past.
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
i absolutely know what i am talking about, and i am going to call bullshit right here.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...
i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..
well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.
Those obese visits you're talking about are not well care. Obesity is a recognized illness, and pcps get them covered every time.
As for well visits, they are covered to pcps. Not to specialists. What kind of provider are you? Im guessing not Im or fp or ped.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
my wife had hi blood pressure 6 fkn years ago right after birth of our daugher. hi blood pressure accompanying birth is VERY common. 6 years later she tries to get insurance and is turned down by 3 private insurers due to the infamous 'pre-existing condition' bullshit. sorry, your FKD!
our healthcare is shameful, try to improve it an out come the trolls. funny thing is 'obamacare' really resembles the gop healthcare reform plans of years past.
What else accompanies the high blood pressure? I'm sorry. There's details missing here.
And if you got employer base HMO coverage, you cannot be denied.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
People aren't. Many uninsureds elect not to carry it. Whether it's the expense of it or they feel they don't need it. Many more that that category doesn't cover does have insurance - it's called indigent care. And, other than the really poor, most anyone can afford a $150 well visit once a year (and I'm guessing most doctors would do it even cheaper if they understood circumstances). It's what we choose to spend money on.
I, too believe everyone should have access to care. But, even UHC doesn't do that equitably. Rich Canadians still come across the border to get care that would otherwise be delayed in their home country or pay premium to get access to private doctors.
Government is what we allow it to be.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
how do you rate care? is it my life expectancy? how about quality of life? Canada ha s a high life expectancy than America. Canada has been ranked second in according to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on quality of life.
secondly, it would not be the government who would be calling clients it still would be the doctors and nurses doing that. i think people have misconception of UHC. its not a perfect system but i do believe that it is better than what america has now.
i have had many people who i know who have been deny health coverage due to issues of past health.
I agree with you that canada system is not perfect. yes many rich Canadians do go to America but if you look at the system overall i believe you will see that it does do a better job. we are not looking for equitably we are looking for a balance. and right now i don't see that balance in America health care system.
If you had employer based, managed care coverage, you cannot be denied insurance.
That's the misconception in this new law. While, yes, the above requires you find a job with health coverage - there are ways. And if you can't work at all, you'd probably be covered by Medicare (disability) or Medicaid (earnings threshhold) anyway.
That cannot deny coverage thing is a boondoggle. It really only applies to individual coverages, and all that's going to do is shoot rates through the roof for those currently with individual coveage already in order to cover these pre-existing people. There are better ways to go about that without whacking millions of people. The bill hurts more people than it helps.
No system will be perfect. I think we can all agree on that. I just think private companies, with proper oversight can do a more efficient job than the government with better outcomes for the patients.
I also think that where doctors have willingly partnered with the private companies (Think Keiser health plans), everyone's a winner and clinical outcomes are superior to just about any health care in the world. And that's an extremely closed/managed model. But, patients, doctors, and carrier all work together. It doesn't seem managed b/c all the doctors follow protocol and buy into the system. And that's the piece that's missing here. Doctors hate the companies, they pass that on to their patients, and it becomes a vicious cycle that winds up being bad for the patient.
I agree with most of what you said here and i am not a fan of this health care bill you have but for me its because it was a sell out bill.
Um... no, that's not how that works. With single-payer, we all get the same care.
This is also why Clinton(s) was smart enough to leave it alone. It's clear the majority doesn't want it. And it's not clear it will solve the problem (if I hear bend the cost curve one more time...). And then you wind up with an even worse non-compromise most of which will be repealed as soon as 1 term is out of office (if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down before then).
In actuality - Managed Care would be more efficient if Gov't gave it a backbone rather than caving to every wimpering person that comes along (I am not saying companies don't make mistakes they need to be held accountable for - just saying there are instances where gov't steps in for no good reason and drives up unnecessary costs).
but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.
not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.
In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.
I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.
see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.
i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? :( are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?
completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.
Agreed - but, that's also why I think this option needs to be explored more. Quite honestly, some of it is. There's ifs in any system. It's just what are the ifs.
I work with some great doctors and nurses who would not only never deny necessary care, but go out of their way to make sure folks homes are safe for them and that they are taking care of themselves as best they can.
No gov't is going to do that. I'd much prefer to strive for that sort of care for as many people as possible (which considers expense) than settle for a system that everyone knows their hospital bills are paid, but has nobody helping them look out for their own good. We have a long way to go to undo the damage the media has done (this industry is not alone), but if the Feds would provide support instead of tearing it down for simplicity sake, we might have something (and btw, it is actually happening- NY State has a mandated managed care coverage - so if you a in a Medicaid plan, you must enroll in a managed care plan - why, do you suppose a liberal state like NY would do that? Bingo - it's cheaper and more efficient).
No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.
see again you are thinking that the government is going to be the one who will be doing the work which is not the case. the same doctors are going to providing the care not the government.
your idea sound good and i will try to read more about it.
fife answered better than I could, but who makes the death panel arguments? Politicians? Who cares? That's not the real reason. They just make that argument to pander to folks they are basically calling stupid (which is sort of funny that those same people are their biggest supporters).
Nobody believes there are death panels. But, what that refers to is the fact that some folks are denied care based on very real risk factors. Quite frankly - it is logical - you need knee replacement, but you're 90 years old - sorry - you don't get that. One of the things driving costs here is the US is much more sympathetic and insurance will cover that assuming no other mitigating circumstances. So, you replace a knee, the person dies 2 years later at the ripe old age of 92, and we have higher health care costs, so that person can have a better quality of life the last 2 years - I prefer that. Canada and the like does not. From an economic - benefits/risk analysis, I can't really argue with Canada's logic.
ok, i understand, we get that here in Canada too. i am not a person who believes that the government should ever get involved in the actual care of a patient. that should be left between the doctors and the patient.
Have to run now. I'll be home later. Maybe, we can continue this. Thanks for the conversation. (Didn't want you to think I was just bagging out on you). Later.
I've seen them essentially be turned away when they meet the criteria to be in residential treatment care, because nearly all the private insurance companies incorrectly apply the criteria for high acuity hospital care to residential treatment. Try and tell a parent of a kid who has severe behavioral problems that include threatening to kill the new baby, stealing, property destruction, lighting the cat on fire and stabbing the teacher with a pencil that their insurance approved them for 10 days of treatment instead of the 2 or 3 months recommended stay. They do that because they apply hospital criteria to clients, which is, if you haven't attempted to kill yourself or someone else or have been physically aggressive in the last week, you should go to the next lower level of care.
Plus, each insurance company has a different expectations, which only results in more wasted time jumping through the different hoops that each company has put out in front of you and doesn't improve care, it only takes away from it while providers talk on the phone with someone who has no knowledge of the client and fill out required paperwork.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...
i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..
well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Woot!
for now :yawn:
YAY!!!! That means MORE grandmothers and children with cancer will DIE!!!
GOODIEE!!!!!! BOY.. I BET YOU TEA Um... "PEOPLE" ARE PROUD OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!
WOW.... That means that any day now, your health insurance company will tell you "Sorry, we won't treat your car accident injuries... you had ACNE as a TEENAGER!!!"
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
Meh... I'm "rich" (-er than the average American) and live in America and I still got better services in Canada when I was making 40K a year.
Yes, I have an amazing personal doctor who answers my emails at 6 AM, but I also have a PPO that costs more per year than most people make in two months.
My last motorcycle accident when I went to an emergency room... I laid there for 3 hours begging for morphine before I even saw a doctor. The health care down in America... ain't so great.
It was nice to leave the US and finally be able to afford my perscriptions.
my wife had hi blood pressure 6 fkn years ago right after birth of our daugher. hi blood pressure accompanying birth is VERY common. 6 years later she tries to get insurance and is turned down by 3 private insurers due to the infamous 'pre-existing condition' bullshit. sorry, your FKD!
our healthcare is shameful, try to improve it an out come the trolls. funny thing is 'obamacare' really resembles the gop healthcare reform plans of years past.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
Those obese visits you're talking about are not well care. Obesity is a recognized illness, and pcps get them covered every time.
As for well visits, they are covered to pcps. Not to specialists. What kind of provider are you? Im guessing not Im or fp or ped.
What else accompanies the high blood pressure? I'm sorry. There's details missing here.
And if you got employer base HMO coverage, you cannot be denied.