NORAD tracks Santa....

[WYBaugh]

My 2 cents regarding the UK:
 
I agree that the UK NHS is good..but what concerns me is that you and other european countries are working with a total population of just a couple of our states.  UK 2009 population is like 61 million...roughly California and New York's populations.
 
Trying to make this work at a national level in the US would be daunting as well as I don't think our government can run a program correctly.   

[Andrew Williams]

All Hospital and Doctor visits are free here in oz

My family has had three babies, Cancer treatments, lung transplant, internal prosthesis (leg), various bone breakages, screening tests, general check ups, you name it... all for free in the last 20 years.

This includes foreigners... a reciprocal agreement is in existence with the UK... I know I've used it.


At the moment Dental visits are not free but that is on it's way (Although we can use a free service that is provided but that is not convenient).


Strangely our health costs are lower than in the USA (% GDP) and we are told if travelling there to fly home if services are required.

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: Endsieg
this has been an informative..if somewhat political, thread. yes...some minor flameposts, but all awfully civil and good-natured, if not downright hyperbole for the sake of entertainment. UK and US views/experiences on healthcare have been admirably exchanged without much rancour...sure she'll be locked down soon, but not because anyone has taken out long knives[8D]

It's been a fascinating discussion and I've certainly learned something about the US health care system and some myths have been dispelled. I meant I'd be happy to see it locked before the real flamethrowers come out as it would be better to end on a good note. Besides, poor Santa was sidelined too quickly [:D]

[uncc]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

All Hospital and Doctor visits are free here in oz

My family has had three babies, Cancer treatments, lung transplant, internal prosthesis (leg), various bone breakages, screening tests, general check ups, you name it... all for free in the last 20 years.

This includes foreigners... a reciprocal agreement is in existence with the UK... I know I've used it.


At the moment Dental visits are not free but that is on it's way (Although we can use a free service that is provided but that is not convenient).


Strangely our health costs are lower than in the USA (% GDP) and we are told if travelling there to fly home if services are required.

Perhaps not really free, eh? Someone (you and fellow Ozians(?)) had to pay for all that healthcare. Kinda curious how much (percent-wise) of your paycheck you actually get? I'm currently in a 28-30% tax bracket and expect my taxes to rise signficantly due to the shenanigans of our current adminstration [:-]...

[Andrew Williams]

The point is you don't have to take a second thought about visiting the Doctor.

if you are sick you make the visit without having to check your bank balance first.

Healthcare is one of those inalieanable rights.

[Doggie]

Are there lawyers in Australia that do nothing but sue doctors? Do they donate zillions to one particular political party and run ads 24/7 about how you can paid if you taken just about any prescriptiom drug you care to name or if you or your children are not in perfect health?

Do Doctors in Australia have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in mal practice insurance premiums? Has a Australian politician personally driven compentent pediatricians out of business and single handedly increased the cost of health care by pocketing millions in proceeds from lawsuits against doctors who delivered children with birth defects?

Does every hospital that delivers a child with Downs Syndrome or some other congenital defect have to pay millions to some ambulance chaser like former vice presidential nominee John Edwards?

[Andrew Williams]

Hey... sounds like your system need changing...

[Doggie]

hope and change is coming

However, Representatives Eshoo (D-CA), Inslee (D-WA) and Barton (R-TX) are planning to introduce an amendment which tows the brand-name industry line that a 12-year monopoly is needed and waters down the criteria for a given biologic's period of exclusivity to be extended. The practice of getting extensions for small tweaks to the original product--things like shifting the delivery method from a pill to an injection or changing the dosage from twice a day to once a day--has been labeled "evergreening" by consumer groups. This month, the European Union's antitrust regulator said she would begin to monitor the practice closely.



In a copy of the amendment obtained by The Nation, the conditions under which a drug's exclusivity may be renewed are numerous and strikingly vague:

"A change…that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength; or a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency."
This essentially grants big drug manufacturers the ability to wait until the 11th hour to make slight adjustments and receive a substantial extension.



These prolonged monopolies, preventing the production of generics and keeping drug prices high in a healthcare system fraught with increasing costs, might explain why the President has expressed concern about the issue.

But who cares? It's "free".

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams
All Hospital and Doctor visits are free here in oz

Since whe is it free? Its not free for me!

-

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Healthcare is one of those inalieanable rights.

I disagree. It may be a desireable social goal but it is no "inalienable right". What Jefferson meant are rights that are intrinsic to our natural state (God-given if you will). These should not be abridged by government. Here we are talking about something quite different. Indeed, in order to provide free healthcare for all it wil, of necessity, require that the rights of others be compromised (ie., confiscating their wealth).

Besides, if it is so obvious that healthcare is a human right, then why should it stop at a national border? Every pregnant Mexican woman should have the right to come t o the US for her delivery.....wait...maybe that isn't such a good example. We do that already. Well, I am sure somebody can come up with an example....maybe a land bridge to Papua New Guinea so all the locals can come to Oz for free hip replacements.

[NefariousKoel]

The whole healthcare overhaul is just another payout to medical & insurance company interests. The White House having quiet meetings with said companies, congressmen pulling all kinds of pork, it's disgusting.

It's pretty obvious when you see that you are required by law to purchase insurance from a private company. If this isn't tyranny, I don't know what is.


I'm past that bastard, Santa. The Easter Bunny is next on the hit list.

[Andrew Williams]

Its not free for me!

Who have you had to pay?

I'm 48 years old, married with three children various properties and modes of transport, have aging parents and in-laws and never had a bill from a health providor through innumerable health crises. (except dental)

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
.....require that the rights of others be compromised (ie., confiscating their wealth).

This part is a mystery to me. As I underand it, many Americand have their health insurance premiums paid by their employer. Under the new arrangement, the employer will stop doing so. Instead, those funds will be paid to the individual so everyon'e pay packet increases. This is $2,000 - $3,000 per person!

Afterwards, this is taxed at 1.5%. Then, each individual choosed btwenn the 50 insurance companies, tompurchase private medical insurance should you choose. Due to the competition the premiums will be lower than they are now.

As a result, each employee will have more in their pay packet and still have the same level of cover they do now if thats their choice.

-

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
.....require that the rights of others be compromised (ie., confiscating their wealth).

This part is a mystery to me. As I underand it, many Americand have their health insurance premiums paid by their employer. Under the new arrangement, the employer will stop doing so. Instead, those funds will be paid to the individual so everyon'e pay packet increases. This is $2,000 - $3,000 per person!

Afterwards, this is taxed at 1.5%. Then, each individual choosed btwenn the 50 insurance companies, tompurchase private medical insurance should you choose. Due to the competition the premiums will be lower than they are now.

As a result, each employee will have more in their pay packet and still have the same level of cover they do now if thats their choice.

-

Hey don't feel bad...it is a mystery to most of the Senators too. Most of them haven't read the damn thing. There are in fact two bills, a Senate version and a House version. The House version is considerably more Marxist [:)]

The two will have to be reconciled in a compromise bill which, I suspect, will be closer to the Senate version. Whatever the flavor of sausage that emerges I have ZERO confidence it will cost me less. Even worse it creates mandates that are not sustainable in the future.

The good news is I have never used a tanning booth and therefore I won't have to pay the new idiotic tax on fake tans (I am not making this up..there really is a new tax on tanning booths).

[Doggie]

No, Joe, that aint exactly how it's going to work.[8|]

Every working person in the United States currently pays a non refundable 7 per cent of his income in social security and medicaid taxes. An employer matches that for a total of fifteen percent. That's in addition to the mandatory health care plans offered by employers and funded with even more payroll deductions.

This is enough money to provide medical insurance and dental care to every working person in the country, plus hundreds of billions left over to fund a generous pension plan, enough to provide each pensioner with at least fifty thousand a year.

But the politicians stole it. Every dime of it. There is no medicaid trust fund. So they sued the tobacco companies. Every state got a few billion dollars to spend on health care. But they didn't. The politicians and lawyers stole every dime of it. So Obama doubled the already outrageous taxes on Tobacco. In some states, a carton of cigarettes with a retail value of five dollars sells for one hundred dollars.

But that still aint enough. Now they want to force people to buy government health insurance, at what ever price the goverment decrees. That's in addition to all the other taxes, which will remain in effect, along with a bunch of new ones.

It will never be enough. Our politicians like to live well. It costs money to fly your private jet to Copenhagen and scarf lobster and caviar flown in fresh every day while you and the rest of the celebutards save the planet from people like me who insist on owning privately owned vehicles instead of riding the subway like good little proles.

Somebody has to pay for it.

[Andrew Williams]

What part of the $5.00 retail value of a carton of cigarettes costs in the health costs of using that product?

[Doggie]

What part of the retail cost of your favorite lager goes to pay for alcoholism? Maybe beer should cost a hundred bucks a pint. But why stop there? Why not tax everything but bread and water out of the reach of ordinary people? Cars as well. Automobile accidents are a leading cause of death in western countries. Maye we should just lock everyone up in a nice communal farm where they will be safe while they work for the betterment of mindkind.

Hope, change. Learn to love it. Or else.

[Andrew Williams]

We do tax cars, beer and alcohol, just like cigarettes.

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

This part is a mystery to me.

The proposed reforms are still a mystery to most. There are still two versions, one in the US House, one in the US Senate. These will need to be reconciled into a single version, then approved by each house of the legistlature, then signed by the President before it goes into law. Most members of Congress have not yet read the bills (even though they have voted on them once already).

As I underand it, many Americand have their health insurance premiums paid by their employer. Under the new arrangement, the employer will stop doing so. Instead, those funds will be paid to the individual so everyon'e pay packet increases. This is $2,000 - $3,000 per person!

Most people who are are employed do obtain their health insurance through their employer. Generally, an employer will pick up a majority of the health insurance premium, with the empoyee paying the remainder. In most cases, the employee will also have to pay co-pay payments for visits and many medical procedures

Under the proposed reform (as I generally understand it...many of the specifics will be changed during the reconcillation process), government will set out certain specific or minimums that health insurance must cover. Employers can choose to continue the insurance coverages that they already offer (provided they meet the gov. set minimums). If the employer decides to discontinue their insurance plans, they can drop them, but will be forced to pay a certain percentage of an employee's pay (around 8%) as a tax/penalty to the government. Those no longer covered would be able to choose their insurance from a variety of existing private insurance plans. I'm not sure if the premium will be paid from the penalty the employer pays, or if it will come from the increase in employee compensation arrangement you mentioned. "Rich" taxpayers (those making $200,000-250,000/yr or more) would have their income taxes raised to help pay for the overall tab. Here is one little interesting twist: Government would start collecting these taxes in 2010, but this insurance scheme's coverages do not start until 2014. Therefore, the federal government has 10 yrs worth of "income" but pays benefits for only 6 yrs. This makes it easy for the federal government to claim that the overall plan "pays for itself".

Afterwards, this is taxed at 1.5%. Then, each individual choosed btwenn the 50 insurance companies, tompurchase private medical insurance should you choose. Due to the competition the premiums will be lower than they are now.

Some I have already described above.

The proposed reforms do NOT allow competition across state borders. The Congressional Budget Office (an "Independent" office within Congress) has said that many people's premiums would actually increase.

As a result, each employee will have more in their pay packet and still have the same level of cover they do now if thats their choice.

It remains to be seen whether emloyees will have more in their "pay packets"; or whether insurance coverage will remain the same.

Additionally, under one (or possibly both) proposals (again, it's hard to tell), some (those 55 yrs or older) that do not currently have coverage, would be able to enroll in Medicare. (Medicare is a government insurance plan that covers retirees (usually 62-65 and older).
Here is a little tidbit about Medicare. Medicare limits its payments to doctors and hospitals for services rendered to less than the actual cost (varies by state but somewhere around 75%). Therefore, if a doctor charges $100 for a procedure, Medicare will only pay him $75. Guess what, to offset that payment shortage, the doctor will jack the cost for that same service to those patients that are covered by private insurance, or who pay in cash. Therefore, Medicare is actually subsidized by those who are covered under private insurance plans. Also, a portion of every worker's pay (half paid by the employee and half paid by the employer) already goes into a Medicare "Trust fund" to pay for Medicare expenses. Therefore, even though the government has already collected money on the front end from workers & employers for those Medicare explenses, they are also forcing private insurers to subsidize Medicare through the shorted payment scheme I mentioned earlier. Also, that "trust fund"is actually nothing more than an IOU written by the government since they have spent Medicare premiums surpluses from past years and spent the money on other things. The baby boom of people born after WW II, who generated these surpluses, are coming up on retirement age. This "bubble" of people will result in a decline in Medicare premiums paid and an increase in overall costs. Those IOUs will come due and the government will either have to increase the taxes of those still working, or cut benefits.

Here is another tidbit. Everyone will "theoretically" be required to obtain health insurance, however, if you fail to, you will be required to pay a tax penalty (something small...around $500-750/yr). Many young people elect not to obtain health insurance because they believe that they will not use it. Therefore, they will pay a $500/750 yr tax/penalty. (Whereas if they elect insurance, they would pay thousands in premums). If they get sick, they go to the emergency room for treatment. By law, a hospital cannot refuse treatment. If the patient can pay the bill, they will, if not, the hospital usually ends up eating the cost. If the patient is poor, the government will pay the bill (albeit at that reduced amount I mentioned before). If that young person who chose not to get insurance find themselves sick (cancer, other major illness), they simply enroll to get insurance...they cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing circumstances. Therefore, that young person who never paid a dollar into an insurance plan gets cancer, signs up for insurance, and starts paying towards insurance premiums. Despite the fact that cancer treatments may run into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that young person will get covered, despite the fact that they paid almost nothing in the past.

Circling back to the expanded pool of people who will be joining Medicare (and whose procedures are reimbursed by the government at less than cost), doctors and hospitals will find themselves with an ever growing number of patients for whom they are getting less than cost for each procedure. The doctors/hospitals will either have to pass on the cost to private insurance carriers, or decide not to accept Medicare patients, or simply decide to retire/get out of the business. More patients will be seeing doctors & visiting hospitals, but will find less doctors & hospitals to visit. Therefore, most patients may find themselves standing in waiting lines and waiting for surguries & procedures that they do not have to wait for now.

I've probably missed some things, and may have gotten some of these things wrong, as I am not an expert, and, as I said, many of the details have still to be decided.

Oh, and one last thing. The Congressmen who are deciding all this will continue to have unlimited access to doctors, hospitals, and clinics that most people do not have access to.

Have a great day!

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Who have you had to pay?

Every visit to a doctor and every medical procedure costs something!

In spite of Medicare and private health insurance I am still a few dollars out of pocket. once I had a bad cut on the leg and spent 2 nights in hospital and paid numerous bills and after refunds, I was out of pocket more than $300 !