Obamacare has peeps tweeting about escape...to Canada

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

This is what I know: It is INSANE AND EVIL to allow or support a system where private companies necessarily benefit monetarily by figuring out ways to deny health care claims. 'Nuff said.

Sick sick sick.

GoBeavers, I will respond when I have a bit more time, but I wanted to address this ignorant statement.

Please tell me how we can have a system with so much waste, high cost and relatively low outcomes and NOT need to get care better managed?

I love when folks espouse that companies are going around indescimenantly denying care. Such garbage.

There are horror stories within the US system just as there are in Canada (and other countries). Yet somehow, folks still come across the border to get one would assume better care. Logically none of that makes sense.

I think you're in denial.

gimmesometruth27

something is fundamentally wrong when a cancer medication is over $50,000 per single treatment. some people blame the supply. well why won't the manufacturer make more?? if their motivation is simply greed, then there needs to be serious penalties for that.

also, private insurance is in the business of making profits. why else would they deny coverage to high risk patients or those with pre-existing conditions? or why would people with pre-existing conditions or those considered "high risk" get "rated", where they have to pay sky high premiums compared with healthy people in the same age group?

also, people in america like to have the "freedom" of health insurance not dictating their care. i can tell you that insurance dictates care every fucking day in this country. we write prescriptions every day because that med is the best option for certain patients and insurance companies deny them all of the time. they will cover cheeper alternatives and generics, but if there is a name brand drug that has no generic, your insurance is going to deny that drug or pay a very very miniscule percentage on it until that patent runs out and generics become available. insurance companies also deny diagnostic testing every single day. i help to schedule mris, ct scans, doppler tests, dexa scans, bone scans, etc every day, and they always deny certain tests until other ones are done. ie. if a patient comes in with bilateral shin pain and we are assuming bilateral tibial stress fractures and we write an order for a spect scan which is going to show both legs and the metabolic activity in bones in each one, the insuance company is going to try to steer us towards 2 mris, which are hugely expensive compared to spect scans. if you use clinical reasoning, why would a doctor order 2 mris at 3 times the expense to the insurance company when he can get the same information from a single test? or, why would the doctor not just order one mri of the leg with the worst symptoms? if that one mri comes back positive for stress fracture, then you know they have one so you will assume that the other one has one too so you treat it the same way, as if they had bilateral stress fractures. then there is the whole peer to peer review process. sometimes tests are delayed days because the insurance company doctor has to call my doctor i work for and discuss the case and the need for further testing. we have never gotten one denied in the 5.5 years i have worked there, and we can not call the insurance co MD, we are on call waiting for them to call us, all while the patient is waiting to proceed with further evaluation.

we do not have freedom in this country, and insurance companies do dictate care. why won't insurance companies let the doctor's do their jobs instead of getting in the way??? we call it getting cockblocked by your own insurance...

PJ_Soul

dignin wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

This is what I know: It is INSANE AND EVIL to allow or support a system where private companies necessarily benefit monetarily by figuring out ways to deny health care claims. 'Nuff said.

Sick sick sick.

GoBeavers, I will respond when I have a bit more time, but I wanted to address this ignorant statement.

Please tell me how we can have a system with so much waste, high cost and relatively low outcomes and NOT need to get care better managed?

I love when folks espouse that companies are going around indescimenantly denying care. Such garbage.

There are horror stories within the US system just as there are in Canada (and other countries). Yet somehow, folks still come across the border to get one would assume better care. Logically none of that makes sense.

So what you are saying is that US healthcare is non profit? Also, you assume wrong, Canadians crossing the border for treatment go mostly for faster treatment, not better treatment.

Right... and only people with money do it, obviously. People who don't want to wait 6 months for a joint replacement or whatever, and have money to spare. Either that, or go to see specialists for optional treatments that just aren't in Canada because of our small population. The actual quality of care in Canada is very good. Have no idea where Edson got this idea about "low outcomes".

PS - I'm not saying any of this to say "my health care system is better than your health care system". I think about it a lot because I genuinely give a shit that Americans are being denied the right to life saving care because of their socio-economic status. With Canada's god-awful conservative government, I'm terrified that such attitudes found in support of the US system will leak over the border and into the twisted brains of our own "Harper Government".

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I agree that the whole escape to Canada is beyond funny.... I mean, umm... :?

But, the statements about folks going bankrupt, etc are grossly overstated. Yes, it happens. But, in general medical expenses are ONE component of finances that cause folks to go under. More frequently it is mortgages and other debt that causes bankruptcies. The average medical debt for folks that declare bankruptcy in the US is like $1,000.

As for not affording care - the fact is, EVERYONE in the US already has insurance. It's called indigent care. Yes, we need to do better (which Obamacare most definitely is not). But, again folks do not get turned away. Are there horror stories? Sure. Do we need to do better? Absolutely. But, we don't have cancer patients lying on the sides of the road waiting to die. That's just pure rhetoric.

And this is why the problem never gets solved. We focus on these fringe things that are blown out of proportion (though 1 of each is too many) instead of focusing on the real problem(s). They are symptoms of a bigger problem.

If someone who doesn't have insurance gets insurance, are they going to start seeing their doctor for well check ups? The answer is no. Because, quite frankly, they could be doing that now quite cheaply. There are plenty of clinics that give low cost (And sometimes free) well check ups that folks don't take advantage of. So, why would insurance suddenly change this?

And before these clinics are put down and the commentary of they aren't good care (Relatively speaking) - Many doctors in the US don't accept Medicaid (Which is where the real expansion of coverage is coming from in Obamacare) due to the low reimbursement. So, Obamacare is creating a great divide in quality of care.

Nobody is AGAINST Universal Health Care Coverage. Again, another great talking point. I'm against Obamacare, so I must be against Universal Health Care Coverage. That's pure silliness.

just to say about that stat that you wrote about the ave. debt for medical treatment.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 666715.htm

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/you ... -1.3818935

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I agree that the whole escape to Canada is beyond funny.... I mean, umm... :?

But, the statements about folks going bankrupt, etc are grossly overstated. Yes, it happens. But, in general medical expenses are ONE component of finances that cause folks to go under. More frequently it is mortgages and other debt that causes bankruptcies. The average medical debt for folks that declare bankruptcy in the US is like $1,000.

As for not affording care - the fact is, EVERYONE in the US already has insurance. It's called indigent care. Yes, we need to do better (which Obamacare most definitely is not). But, again folks do not get turned away. Are there horror stories? Sure. Do we need to do better? Absolutely. But, we don't have cancer patients lying on the sides of the road waiting to die. That's just pure rhetoric.

And this is why the problem never gets solved. We focus on these fringe things that are blown out of proportion (though 1 of each is too many) instead of focusing on the real problem(s). They are symptoms of a bigger problem.

If someone who doesn't have insurance gets insurance, are they going to start seeing their doctor for well check ups? The answer is no. Because, quite frankly, they could be doing that now quite cheaply. There are plenty of clinics that give low cost (And sometimes free) well check ups that folks don't take advantage of. So, why would insurance suddenly change this?

And before these clinics are put down and the commentary of they aren't good care (Relatively speaking) - Many doctors in the US don't accept Medicaid (Which is where the real expansion of coverage is coming from in Obamacare) due to the low reimbursement. So, Obamacare is creating a great divide in quality of care.

Nobody is AGAINST Universal Health Care Coverage. Again, another great talking point. I'm against Obamacare, so I must be against Universal Health Care Coverage. That's pure silliness.

just to say about that stat that you wrote about the ave. debt for medical treatment.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 666715.htm

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/you ... -1.3818935

thanks for the article but i have to admit that the lack of citing any research on how the writer got to the point of the 1000 in medical bills alarms me.

If you look at the article that I had posted there seem to be more detail than this article.

If you can find some research pieces that show the same view that was written in this opinion piece that would be great.

know1

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

fife

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

actually i think your government is thinking that the issue is not the health insurance but health care.

PJ_Soul

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

I think the problem lies in the fact that basic health insurance is private at all. Basic full health care coverage (as opposed to added extended health care insurance, which is what gives discounts on prescriptions, physio, etc etc) should be a public entity that everyone must have, and which is completely equal coverage for everyone no matter their age, lifestyle, or preexisting conditions.

And here is a link to another thread here, where we can see what the current US system can do to people.... In Canada, money would not be any concern to this 10C member at all, he would never have had to worry about lawyers, etc like this, even with a WCB claim, and that's the way it should be.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192176

FrankieG

Bennyorr4 wrote:

2) Anyone that disagrees with liberals is uninformed (The Daily Show is an impartial news source!!! ).


Exibit "A" you are part of the problem :roll:

The daily show is the only REAL news program in the states. :roll: :roll: :roll: And its SATIRE, What does that tell you???

:thumbup:

The Daily Show is pretty much where i get my news. Its really the best way because it tries to make fun of every situation and brings to light the dumbass politicians that don't think straight.

know1

fife wrote:

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

actually i think your government is thinking that the issue is not the health insurance but health care.

Well then that's another way they are wrong. The problem is insurance.

know1

PJ_Soul wrote:

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

I think the problem lies in the fact that basic health insurance is private at all. Basic full health care coverage (as opposed to added extended health care insurance, which is what gives discounts on prescriptions, physio, etc etc) should be a public entity that everyone must have, and which is completely equal coverage for everyone no matter their age, lifestyle, or preexisting conditions.

And here is a link to another thread here, where we can see what the current US system can do to people.... In Canada, money would not be any concern to this 10C member at all, he would never have had to worry about lawyers, etc like this, even with a WCB claim, and that's the way it should be.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192176

I don't mind it being private, but people should be purchasing appropriate plans for themselves on their own and not just wait to be "given" one by an employer.

And by appropriate plans, I mean high-deductible, catastrophic only plans.

We should be paying for most of our healthcare out of pocket.

fife

know1 wrote:

fife wrote:

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

actually i think your government is thinking that the issue is not the health insurance but health care.

Well then that's another way they are wrong. The problem is insurance.

can you please elaborate on this statement?

fife

know1 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

I think the problem lies in the fact that basic health insurance is private at all. Basic full health care coverage (as opposed to added extended health care insurance, which is what gives discounts on prescriptions, physio, etc etc) should be a public entity that everyone must have, and which is completely equal coverage for everyone no matter their age, lifestyle, or preexisting conditions.

And here is a link to another thread here, where we can see what the current US system can do to people.... In Canada, money would not be any concern to this 10C member at all, he would never have had to worry about lawyers, etc like this, even with a WCB claim, and that's the way it should be.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192176

I don't mind it being private, but people should be purchasing appropriate plans for themselves on their own and not just wait to be "given" one by an employer.

And by appropriate plans, I mean high-deductible, catastrophic only plans.

We should be paying for most of our healthcare out of pocket.

the issue is not that simple. what about the people who can get insured? also, what is the definition of catastrophic and who defines it?

PJ_Soul

know1 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

know1 wrote:

I just can't wrap my mind around how our government thinks that a solution to the health insurance problem is to REQUIRE people to purchase private health insurance. It's just not fathomable to me.

That being said, I'm not near desperate enough to consider a move to Canada.

I think the problem lies in the fact that basic health insurance is private at all. Basic full health care coverage (as opposed to added extended health care insurance, which is what gives discounts on prescriptions, physio, etc etc) should be a public entity that everyone must have, and which is completely equal coverage for everyone no matter their age, lifestyle, or preexisting conditions.

And here is a link to another thread here, where we can see what the current US system can do to people.... In Canada, money would not be any concern to this 10C member at all, he would never have had to worry about lawyers, etc like this, even with a WCB claim, and that's the way it should be.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192176

I don't mind it being private, but people should be purchasing appropriate plans for themselves on their own and not just wait to be "given" one by an employer.

And by appropriate plans, I mean high-deductible, catastrophic only plans.

We should be paying for most of our healthcare out of pocket.

Why do you think that? How is paying out of pocket beneficial when there are so many people who don't have any money in their pockets? Is your opinion based on the theory that people SHOULD have money in their pocket, and if they don't and can't afford health care, that's their problem? The ones with money are the ones who deserve the best care because they can pay for it? Or do you think this for some other reason?

I don't like the idea of private insurance companies for basic health care because it necessarily means that they are searching for ways to make more profit, and the ONLY way they can do that is by working to give the least return for the most profit. When it comes to health care, that seems really fucked up to me.

know1

fife wrote:

the issue is not that simple. what about the people who can get insured? also, what is the definition of catastrophic and who defines it?

The individual defines it. Catastrophic insurance would not be as expensive.

know1

fife wrote:

can you please elaborate on this statement?

We (individuals) have allowed ourselves to get into this situation by relying on others to "provide" our insurance for us via automatic drafts and by-way of benefits.

We need to take back ownership of our own health care (not health INSURANCE), but putting the responsibility back in our hands and reducing the role of the middle men who do not have our own best interests in mind.

By remote control, we're now paying some other entity to negotiate the cost of and pay our health care. All competition and consumerism has been removed and we're paying for bureaucracy and red tape.

PJ_Soul

know1 wrote:

fife wrote:

can you please elaborate on this statement?

We (individuals) have allowed ourselves to get into this situation by relying on others to "provide" our insurance for us via automatic drafts and by-way of benefits.

We need to take back ownership of our own health care (not health INSURANCE), but putting the responsibility back in our hands and reducing the role of the middle men who do not have our own best interests in mind.

By remote control, we're now paying some other entity to negotiate the cost of and pay our health care. All competition and consumerism has been removed and we're paying for bureaucracy and red tape.

So... you want to pay up front for all health care?? You know that just one MRI can cost thousands of dollars, right?

know1

That's what the health insurance companies TELL you it costs.

Would it cost that much if health insurance didn't exist? I highly doubt it. Just think of the people the physician has to keep on staff to deal with the insurance paperwork and red-tape and the delay in getting paid. Then you throw in the salaries and operating costs of the insurance company and suddenly the MRI is a lot more expensive.

Regarding money upfront - if my employers had given me all the money they've paid in for my premiums over the years in salary and I bought my own high deductible insurance for catastrophic situations, I'd have a large pool of money just sitting there right now to pay for all my day-to-day health needs in cash, upfront, at lower costs than we have today.

I just don't see why people can't understand that we have allowed private insurance through employers to totally destroy our health care system.

ComeToTX

know1 wrote:

That's what the health insurance companies TELL you it costs.

Would it cost that much if health insurance didn't exist? I highly doubt it. Just think of the people the physician has to keep on staff to deal with the insurance paperwork and red-tape and the delay in getting paid. Then you throw in the salaries and operating costs of the insurance company and suddenly the MRI is a lot more expensive.

Regarding money upfront - if my employers had given me all the money they've paid in for my premiums over the years in salary and I bought my own high deductible insurance for catastrophic situations, I'd have a large pool of money just sitting there right now to pay for all my day-to-day health needs in cash, upfront, at lower costs than we have today.

I just don't see why people can't understand that we have allowed private insurance through employers to totally destroy our health care system.

Our hospital bill when we had our baby included $28 for Kleenex. No shit!

PJ_Soul

ComeToTX wrote:

know1 wrote:

That's what the health insurance companies TELL you it costs.

Would it cost that much if health insurance didn't exist? I highly doubt it. Just think of the people the physician has to keep on staff to deal with the insurance paperwork and red-tape and the delay in getting paid. Then you throw in the salaries and operating costs of the insurance company and suddenly the MRI is a lot more expensive.

Regarding money upfront - if my employers had given me all the money they've paid in for my premiums over the years in salary and I bought my own high deductible insurance for catastrophic situations, I'd have a large pool of money just sitting there right now to pay for all my day-to-day health needs in cash, upfront, at lower costs than we have today.

I just don't see why people can't understand that we have allowed private insurance through employers to totally destroy our health care system.

Our hospital bill when we had our baby included $28 for Kleenex. No shit!

:shock: