Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 7-1-2014 at 03:03
Article about the Obamacare Medicaid deceit

The article starts with an account of a doctor who was going to discontinue seeing Medicaid patients, because the government pays only part of what it costs to treat them. As the writer says, having health insurance (Medicaid) is not the same as having health care.

Among people who go to the hospital, a higher percentage of people die who are under Medicaid than those who have no insurance.:(
marymary100

[*] posted on 29-12-2013 at 16:16
Ah, another Honey Boo Boo type programme. Not what I tend to watch of an evening. :)
delanti

[*] posted on 29-12-2013 at 14:37
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Nope. Do tell.


I can't believe you missed this.waveysmiley

Phil

Reinstated
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 23:21
But the bill's the important part and the thing that stops some seeking medical care. I was covered to a certain extent by my HMO through work. My friend Debbie on the other hand had two pregnancies while I was in the US and was wheeched in and out of hospital in under a few hours. Debbie did not keep good health and is the girl I was telling you about a few months ago that I found out had died a couple of years back. The real shock was that her daughter Muna is dead too. In this country seeking out medical care would not have been such a worry in the first place. So, it is not "false". It is my experience. waveysmiley
scholar

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 23:19
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
But the bill's the important part

When Delanti points out that people could get medical care in the U.S.--their broken bones could be set, their babies delivered, etc., you say that the BILL is the IMPORTANT PART?

I think the important part is the medical treatment. The bill is important, too, because the treatment must somehow be paid for, or the doctors and hospitals will be unable to give the medical services (many doctors have debts of over $100,000 when they leave medical school--they can't work for free or they can't pay back their loans). But THE important part is the actual medical treatment.

By the way, it is worth mentioning that it was the Christians who gave us hospitals as places where everyone who needed medical care could go to get it. In former times, those of little value to society were expendable; but, those who followed Jesus learned that the poor are of no less value to the Lord than the rich.
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 23:18
Nope. Do tell.
delanti

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 23:11
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100

So, it is not "false". It is my experience. waveysmiley


Better be careful talking about your experience, you know what happened to Phil Robertson when he talked about his experiences.nananana
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 16:34
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100

It meant that when I was out of work - having just returned from the US/Iraq - I didn't have to worry about going in to hospital to have my daughter. It was just as well as there ended up being unforeseen complications. In America the bills would have been huge, or I might have been dead or lost the baby. Here, however, there was nothing but medical support.


Except for the bill part, the rest is totally false. If you had had the baby here, you could have gone to any hospital and been treated with quality care for you and the baby. That has always been mandated by Federal law. Care is not the issue. Paying the bill is the issue. After leaving the hospital you would have had several options. Forget the bill and just not pay it. The illegals do this all the time. Negotiate the cost down or barter the price. The Amish do this all the time, they will build a custom dresser for the Dr. as payment. If you had no insurance, the cost would have been less than if you had insurance.

When I got divorced with 3 young kids, I could not afford insurance. I went uncovered for 9 years, paying for ER visits, dental care, Doctors visits and even one appendectomy which only cost me $1200.00 because I had no insurance. I figured at the time I actually saved thousand of dollars by not paying for insurance. I would not recommend doing that and I was probably a little lucky but at the time but I had no other option.

In the normal course of events, health insurance is not worth it. It is only beneficial in catastrophic cases. waveysmiley


But the bill's the important part and the thing that stops some seeking medical care. I was covered to a certain extent by my HMO through work. My friend Debbie on the other hand had two pregnancies while I was in the US and was wheeched in and out of hospital in under a few hours. Debbie did not keep good health and is the girl I was telling you about a few months ago that I found out had died a couple of years back. The real shock was that her daughter Muna is dead too. In this country seeking out medical care would not have been such a worry in the first place. So, it is not "false". It is my experience. waveysmiley
scholar

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 15:51
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Those of us who pay in cover those who cannot. It's called a service because it is there to look after everyone, regardless of income. Those who wish to opt in to private medicine still can.

It meant that when I was out of work - having just returned from the US/Iraq - I didn't have to worry about going in to hospital to have my daughter. It was just as well as there ended up being unforeseen complications. In America the bills would have been huge, or I might have been dead or lost the baby. Here, however, there was nothing but medical support.

Now my parents are in their final years and have been playing tag all year going in and out of hospital, again - free to them. It does not bother me that some get the benefits without having paid in. My parents paid in all their working lives. I'm paying in now and will be till I'm 67. My daughter will be paying in till she's around 70.

It is not only a model of how to take care of others health care needs, it is a model for how to take care of others full stop.

When I spoke against the Democrat leader's stupidity (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), I was not speaking against your NHS. According to her false promise, the money spent would be without limit, while the premiums funding the insurance would never increase at all, no matter how much the money spent exceeded the money available from the premiums. Who is so stupid to think that a program will work if it costs ten times, twenty times, or thirty times more than the money coming in to fund it?

As I understand it, the NHS is not so stupid. Those who administer the program sometimes must make the hard decision, "No, we cannot do this, because the expense is more than we can justify. We cannot destroy the National Health Service for everyone by spending limitless money on a few people and not having enough left to cover essential medical needs of others."
delanti

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 15:17
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100

It meant that when I was out of work - having just returned from the US/Iraq - I didn't have to worry about going in to hospital to have my daughter. It was just as well as there ended up being unforeseen complications. In America the bills would have been huge, or I might have been dead or lost the baby. Here, however, there was nothing but medical support.


Except for the bill part, the rest is totally false. If you had had the baby here, you could have gone to any hospital and been treated with quality care for you and the baby. That has always been mandated by Federal law. Care is not the issue. Paying the bill is the issue. After leaving the hospital you would have had several options. Forget the bill and just not pay it. The illegals do this all the time. Negotiate the cost down or barter the price. The Amish do this all the time, they will build a custom dresser for the Dr. as payment. If you had no insurance, the cost would have been less than if you had insurance.

When I got divorced with 3 young kids, I could not afford insurance. I went uncovered for 9 years, paying for ER visits, dental care, Doctors visits and even one appendectomy which only cost me $1200.00 because I had no insurance. I figured at the time I actually saved thousand of dollars by not paying for insurance. I would not recommend doing that and I was probably a little lucky but at the time but I had no other option.

In the normal course of events, health insurance is not worth it. It is only beneficial in catastrophic cases. waveysmiley
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 11:40
And in case you think I'm exaggerating about the cost of healthcare in the US. Here is the run down of a bill for someone who had appendicitis.

http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN



In the UK, free at point of use...
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 11:08
Those of us who pay in cover those who cannot. It's called a service because it is there to look after everyone, regardless of income. Those who wish to opt in to private medicine still can.

It meant that when I was out of work - having just returned from the US/Iraq - I didn't have to worry about going in to hospital to have my daughter. It was just as well as there ended up being unforeseen complications. In America the bills would have been huge, or I might have been dead or lost the baby. Here, however, there was nothing but medical support.

Now my parents are in their final years and have been playing tag all year going in and out of hospital, again - free to them. It does not bother me that some get the benefits without having paid in. My parents paid in all their working lives. I'm paying in now and will be till I'm 67. My daughter will be paying in till she's around 70.

It is not only a model of how to take care of others health care needs, it is a model for how to take care of others full stop.
scholar

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 04:08
Sadly for us, Marymary, the U.S. government's record on health care is nowhere near as good as even England's NHS, let alone Scotland's NHS which you have said is better yet.

Worse, U.S. politicians have not been able to resist starting and promising things that are financially unsustainable. The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives is famous for saying that there would never be any limit on how much would be spent on a person for his health care, but his premiums would never go up.

How can anyone believe in limitless amounts of money being spent, without any compensating adjustment in the money which would have to go into the insurance?:dun)
delanti

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 03:47
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Yes. if only it was as good as the NHS.


Then we would have the Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians here instead of the Mexicans.waveysmiley

Mac Davis
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 00:34
Yes. if only it was as good as the NHS.
delanti

[*] posted on 28-12-2013 at 00:26
It is interesting that a situation created by the Government is now supposed to be solved by the people who were supposed to be helped.

The ACA was supposedly passed to help the uninsured and under-insured obtain affordable health care. Unfortunately, in the rush to get it passed into law, it was not scrutinized and debated enough to eliminate some of the problems it was creating.

It is not just Scholar in his City that is being hurt but probably millions of other poor people across the Country. The free healthcare facilities run by the non-profits are being closed and the users shoved onto Medicaid. What this means is that now the Government will have to pay for their health care. Also when accepting Medicaid, if you have any personal property, upon your demise, that property will be forfeited to the Government.

Also instead of getting free medicines, they will have to make co-pays which will further reduce their disposable income potentially making their situation worse. For something that was supposed to help the poor, it seems an ill thought out program in its totality that creates more problems than it solves.

Before the ACA, most people who had insurance were happy with what they had. The problem was 2 categories, those who were denied insurance and those who had no insurance. Those who had no insurance were mainly poor who were not taking advantage of Medicaid which has always been available. Many of them didn't want to bother signing up since they knew they could go to the ER anytime and get treated anyway. A lot of the uninsured are people in this Country illegally who don't want to sign up for Medicaid because they don't want the Government to know who and where they are so they also just go to the ER.

I think these 2 problems could have been solved by passing a bill that addressed the specific problems without throwing the entire Countries health care insurance program into turmoil. Sadly, although well intentioned, our Government does not have a sterling track record for running social programs. waveysmiley
marymary100

[*] posted on 27-12-2013 at 10:54
Maybe it's time to stop expecting charity.
Nimuae

[*] posted on 27-12-2013 at 07:20
Maybe it is time to look for better paid work, Scholar. or is the employment situation very bad where you live?
scholar

Depicts mood of post posted on 27-12-2013 at 00:51
President Obama said, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your plan." But, he lied--tens of millions of people have learned they cannot keep their same health coverage. Perhaps the worst part is, he KNEW he was lying--his advisers told him it wasn't true, but he continued to say it, anyway.

I have been covered by a non-government charity health clinic administered by the Sisters of St. Francis (a Roman Catholic order). I went in for my annual evaluation, to get my clinic card renewed, and was told the program is ending. Their pharmacy, from which I have gotten thousands of dollars' worth of medicine at no cost to me, will be sending out the medical prescription scripts to whatever pharmacy the patients select.

What killed the program? Obamacare! My case worker told me to sign up for Medicaid, the government program for poor people, which has been expanded under Obamacare. It is notorious for underpaying for medical services and for limiting medical and pharmacy medicine choices.

Because it underpays for so many health services, many doctors decline to take Medicaid patients. (A less severe position is for a doctor to take a limited number of Medicaid patients, thus taking a pay cut to serve some poor people, but not limiting the number so as not to ruin their own financial prospects.)

I will have to make copayments for my medicines, the amount depending on which list the medication is on.

As bad as it is to read of the harm Obamacare has been causing the country--people having their health insurance cancelled, people losing income because their hours are cut to make them part-time employees, people having their health insurance rates go up, etc.--it really hit home when the health coverage I have enjoyed for years was cancelled, and I was told to put myself at the mercies of government-health-care-for-the-poor.angrymad2