I have just heard President Obama declare that one of the bad practices of the health insurance companies which will be eliminated in the health care
bill is limits on health care expenses. Insurance companies will no longer be able to put a limit on how much your health care may cost them in a
particular year, or in your lifetime.
So, if your medical condition is such that you will need millions of dollars spent on your health most years, the insurance company must pay it, endlessly.
President Obama also said that the bill will bring the cost of health insurance DOWN.
A question of logic--if the insurance companies must pay out ten times, twenty times, even fifty times as much as they used to pay, how is it that the cost will come DOWN? If they are required by law to pay endlessly (three heart transplants in the same year for a patient, for example), how will the cost be reduced? Doesn't logic say that the cost will go UP? Won't the insurance companies have to increase their rates to cover the new obligations imposed on them by the law?
Speaker Pelosi said something very similar--your health benefits will never be limited, and your premiums will never increase.
How is this possible?
What would happen to your "charity health care" if you actually got a job scholar?
What are the chances of that happening, eh?
We have a life long medical condition to deal with in our family. As long as the treatment is necessary and we are prepared to accept the "public" doctor and hospital (IOW, we cannot pick and choose who our physician will be, nor do we get a choice on the hospital or bed) then our treatment is free. If we choose to "go it alone" then either we foot the bill or we get private health insurance. There are some treatments, and medications that are not on the government's list of "acceptable" treatments although they may be valid. For those, we must pay. I fail to see how private health insurance as you describe it, scholar, can benefit anyone except the shareholders. Any insurer who, upon assessing their risk, may decline to insure a person just as Joe Public can decline to accept their offer of insurance.
I was with an HMO when I was in the States and it was adequate for me as my particular needs at the time were small.
A colleague of mine became seriously ill however and the same HMO cancelled his healthcare due to the amounts of money involved as he was likely to eventually need catastrophic health care. He sued and in the meantime his wife who worked for the Pentagon's insurance covered him. Eventually things went his way legally but he had years of frustration which contributed to his untimely death.
IMO when you're really sick the last thing you should be worried about is whether you will be covered for the treatment you require.
In the US, Medicare (government health care for the aged) denies more than health insurance.
Someone in the medical profession told me that it is against the law to charge a Medicare patient for a procedure that the government has disallowed. So, if the person needs the procedure to save his life, he cannot get it by paying for it himself. Unless he leaves the country to get it out of reach of U.S. law, he dies.
This is from a conversation with a nurse who works in a doctors' office, O Leigh.
So it might not necessarily be true.
If it's more than hearsay it should be simple enough to find evidence to support the assertion.
It's hearsay from you and it's not my job to prove your claims.
What it I were to tell you that I'd heard it directly from a source that the nurse is incorrect in what she said?
This seems to dispute Scholars nurse friend claims
Things like the story Scholar is relaying here have happened here, but often because there is a valid reason. The PCT have a set of NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) guidlines and also limited resources, so it has to consider the needs as a whole for the area they are delivering to.
All that said, usually they refuse certain treatments because it is A, considered to be an outdated treatment and better options are available, or B, because funds are limited, and "suits"have decided that a particular drug/treatment/whatever, despite the evidence, is too expensive... They seemingly usually back down though when people start kicking off... And eventually the guidelines are changed...
I'm sorry for my post, my bad.
To use, Scholar, your report is only hearsay, try and stand up in court and say that someone told you that "a" happened when you have no first hand
experience to back it up or corroborating evidence. I'm certain the opposing lawyer would chew you up and spit you out so fast your words would have
not got past " I was told..."
You made the assertion, it is, therefore, incubent upon you provide corroborating evidence, or it is only hearsay!
If you ask her nicely, she'll give you a jolly good tawsing.
For once, I agree with you Scholar, the graphic does not really give enough information to make the graph meaningful. It's like at one side they've marked a country with 'per capita costs' and on the other side they've listed life expectancies and then drawn a line between the two rather than just write that data next to the country to which it refers!
Answers some of the questions...
Thanks SF, answers it all really.
Longevity is not a reasonable way of measuring how good a nation's health care is. It doesn't take account how many people die young because of
crime, or because of drug abuse. It doesn't take account of whether one nation has more exposure to substances which promote cancer than another
(including tobacco). It doesn't take account of whether a nation's diet is such as to bring on more artery disease, or heart disease, or diabetes.
Some ethnic populations have a higher rate of alcoholism than others.
In the U.S., health costs are driven higher because of lawsuits. Lawyers sue for the very largest amount they might get (which may be unreasonably high), and they get a percentage of the money their client is awarded. If laws were adjusted so that suits were limited to the actual medical costs and lost wages, medical fees would not be set so high as to cover the high malpractice insurance necessary to cover the gigantic penalties that some juries award patients when doctors make honest mistakes.
Another additional cost that arises from the unlimited lawsuits are the many expensive, unnecessary tests doctors order for self-protection. They may be 99% sure that a patient has one condition, but they will order a test that costs hundreds of dollars just so they cannot be sued because they did not check the highly unlikely 1% possibility.
Sadly, the Democrat lawyers in the White House are not interested in reducing health care costs in a way that would reduce the money that lawyers get. Of the thousands of pages in the proposed law, there is not one sentence actually lowering costs by restricting what lawyers can take from people.
Lower life expectancy: drugs; tobacco; guns; fat-filled diet; less willingness to walk anywhere; poor healthcare unless one is willing to pay
There's almost no need for your enemies to use terrorism against you as you seem intent on killing yourselves before your time.
Sadly, that's all too true, as Jamie Oliver found out.
IIRC, he had similar issues in England, too.