• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Uninsured's leave $49 billion in unpaid hospital bills

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I usually wait until I have discussed my thoughts with my wife before posting on this thread, but I just have to ask: Why are we assuming the United States government will instantly have the same issues currently held by the Canadian government as soon as we nationalize health care? Who is to say our issues will more accurately mirror the Swiss or Italy?

For the record, I know of the shortcomings of Canada's health care system, which seems to be an issue of supply and demand. If the United States can take all of these foreign dignitaries into their hospitals, where is the supply and demand problem? We don't seem to have one, despite all of our other health care issues.

And as much as we enjoy bashing Canada's health care, the World Health Organization places Canada as #30 while the US lags behind at #37. In other words, it kinda sucks being extremely wealthy in Canada and having a health problem, but it just plain sucks to have a health problem in the United States.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html


Everyone who argues for socialized medicine always cites that silly list from 2000. That was the FIRST AND LAST year the WHO ever did that stupid freaking ranking....they got completely abused after reporting it. The reason it was discontinued is because it was ridiculous. WHO admitted that their ranking system was totally flawed after those rankings came out. They postponed the next year rankings....and then postponed them again....then eliminated it all together. It was a marketing piece for Socialized healthcare, exposed as such and then abandoned.
 
Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People

BELMONT, MA—Though Mitt Romney is considered to be a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the national spotlight has forced him to repeatedly confront a major skeleton in his political closet: that as governor of Massachusetts he once tried to help poor, uninsured sick people.

Romney, who signed the state's 2006 health care reform act, has said he "deeply regrets" giving people in poor physical and mental health the opportunity to seek medical attention, admitting that helping very sick people get better remains a dark cloud hovering over his political career, and his biggest obstacle to becoming president of the United States of America.

"Every day I am haunted by the fact that I gave impoverished Massachusetts citizens a chance to receive health care," Romney told reporters Wednesday, adding that he feels ashamed whenever he looks back at how he forged bipartisan support to help uninsured Americans afford medicine to cure their illnesses. "I'm only human, and I've made mistakes. None bigger, of course, than helping cancer patients receive chemotherapy treatments and making sure that those suffering from pediatric AIDS could obtain medications, but that's my cross to bear."

"My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor," Romney added. "It was wrong, and I'm sorry."

According to Romney, if he could do things over again, he would do everything he could to make certain that uninsured individuals got sicker and sicker until they died. Promising his days of trying to provide medical coverage to the gravely ill are behind him, Romney said that if elected president, he would never even think about increasing anyone's quality of life or trying to lower the infant mortality rate.

In addition, Romney repeatedly apologized for wanting to help people suffering from diabetes, Crohn's disease, and anemia.

"I don't know what got into me back then," Romney said. "Wanting to make sure people were able to have health insurance if they left their job. Providing a federally funded website so individuals could compare the costs of insurance providers. Making certain that somebody who earns less than 150 percent of the poverty level can receive the same health care coverage as me or any government official. All I can say is that I was young and immature, and I am not that person anymore."

"The only solace I can take is in the hope that some of the folks I helped were terminally ill patients who eventually withered away and died," Romney added.

Though Romney has apologized profusely, Beltway insiders said he would need to distance himself from his I-tried-to-help-sickpeople image. Sources noted that Romney's current promise to take away health care from anyone who can't afford it is a step in the right direction, but might not be enough.

"The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care," conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. "No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people."

Thus far, Romney is polling strongly in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, but Republican strategists and voters agree that even in a general election, his sordid past would continue to dog him.

"I don't think I can vote for someone like that," Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. "He says he's sorry, but how do I know that's the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?"

"I like Michele Bachmann now," Tolbert added. "Because what this country needs is a president who doesn't give a fuck about helping people."


Yeah, i know it's the Onion, but that's pretty much the Dem argument along with many posting here - if you don't want nationalized health care, you hate sick people. Doesn't matter if my wife had a pre-existing condition that took her life, doesn't matter that my brother died of a pre-existing condition, I'm against it because I don't like to help sick people....got it, awesome, thanks.
 
Yeah, i know it's the Onion, but that's pretty much the Dem argument along with many posting here - if you don't want nationalized health care, you hate sick people. Doesn't matter if my wife had a pre-existing condition that took her life, doesn't matter that my brother died of a pre-existing condition, I'm against it because I don't like to help sick people....got it, awesome, thanks.

Disagree with the findings of the WHO if you want, that is fine. However, the rest of my points have yet to be addressed. The fact that the insurance companies themselves recognize the system as broken should prove that something needs to be fixed. I haven't made any suggestions that if you aren't in favor of connecting social security numbers to health care you are anti-sick people. I do question why successful models of health care exist, yet they are being dismissed. I question why opponents of additional government control in health care assume everything the government does turns to crap when European governments are doing just fine.

If the argument against Obama's plan were "We are in a huge debt to China at the moment, let's pay that back," Well, I'd personally be listening. I wasn't in favor of the health plan at first. Then I heard people in the insurance business tell me all the ways the current system harms the economy. Isn't that the point? To provide the best care while digging out from the economic downturn?

Insurance on a global scale isn't patterned off of the U.S. system anymore, and it becomes less so as businesses globalize. It's like we are trotting out the Greg Ostertag of insurance programs night after night while the rest of the world is playing pick and roll. It's like sending faxes and refusing to get on the internet. It's like getting your car phone repaired because you think cell phones will cause cancer.
 
Yeah, i know it's the Onion, but that's pretty much the Dem argument along with many posting here - if you don't want nationalized health care, you hate sick people. Doesn't matter if my wife had a pre-existing condition that took her life, doesn't matter that my brother died of a pre-existing condition, I'm against it because I don't like to help sick people....got it, awesome, thanks.

I'm sorry about your wife and I don't want to get too personal. But the Onion's satire works because it's based on a glaring truth. Romney and Obama signed plans that provide health insurance for the poor and sick. The GOP does not have a plan that enables everyone to be covered. It's fair to point that out.
 
Have you looked in to how much it would cost you to buy your own health insurance outside the college's plan?

No matter how you look at it the incentives are wrong. Business are making business decisions to hire non-full time workers to avoid having to pay them benefits, and those taking those jobs are avoiding buying their own insurance due to the expense. And then the rest of us have to pick up the bill.

Yes, I've looked into it. And I've been rejected by every insurance company I applied to. The short version of the story is that I was on a year-long contract with a college and so I had health coverage; during that I was diagnosed with Crohn's. When that contract was up, my coverage ran out. COBRA was ridiculously expensive. Then I started getting turned down by insurance companies. Two years later, I'm back at the same school as an adjunct, and no health care. Finding a full-time job in my field has been a bitch. The high-risk pool insurance that is being offered right now is pretty expensive, too. Depending on my work situation this fall, I'm hoping to apply for it then.

You're right that businesses are in tough positions. I don't think they're all evil or anything outlandish like that, but like I said, the point of a business is to make money. I believe that's why there's a tax credit for small businesses in the law.

Most of the people want the Health Care Law repealed...




There's got to be a solution to get the people that need coverage, deserve coverage, but can't get it, without going to nationalized healthcare. I have no idea how accurate the numbers below are from Senator Risch's study, but i think his point is valid. There are a number of people that are uninsured, that have options, but choose not to use them. Another large portion of the uninsured aren't legally eligible. The portion of Americans without options is a small percentage that we need to address, but not by forcing a trillion dollar nationalized program on everyone.

Like LJ4MVP pointed out, a number of those people don't "choose not to use it", they can't afford to. I haven't checked out the senator's figures, but the one I quoted a few posts back suggest only 10% of the uninsured are in families making 88k a year. That's a family of four. 88k doesn't go very far for four people even if they're healthy.

What you called "forced on everyone" I call the reality of politics. I put up with it during the Bush administration and I put up with listening to Republicans crow about it after they won seats back this past year. What our Statehouse is passing these days is, I think, supremely stupid. And I have a right to voice my opinion about it. But they were elected, and that's the political reality of the day.

Doug I have no options here in the US. Medicaid or nothing. In Canada my only option would be Canada care, but I would also be aloud to work there and feel more like a man. I mean for being the greatest country on earth I don't understand why they keep cutting medicaid for me. Why all of a sudden I have to pay out of pocket to fix my wheelchair that will cost me 1500 dollars when I am not even aloud to work. I'm trying to get the money to order the parts, while also looking for a used chair. Until then I have to crawl like a child. I guess what I really need to do is go have some kids and then the welfare gods might help me. 2014 is when health care reform kicks in for me and I can get private insurance, you understand why I'm voting for Obama now right?

I hear what you're saying about having kids. If you don't, in the eyes of a lot of these programs, you're kind of worthless. I'm in the same boat. I also got charity money from the hospital and felt like a goon. I think that's what a lot of people also don't get. The vast majority of Americans want to feel worthwhile and be able to work and take care of their problems.
 
Disa The fact that the insurance companies themselves recognize the system as broken should prove that something needs to be fixed.

I don't think you will find anyone, on any side of the argument, that doesn't agree it's broken and needs fixing.


I question why opponents of additional government control in health care assume everything the government does turns to crap when European governments are doing just fine.

Because everything OUR government touches turns to crap. :chuckles:

If the argument against Obama's plan were "We are in a huge debt to China at the moment, let's pay that back," Well, I'd personally be listening.

That's been part of my argument and the reason the majority of the public has so much fear.



I do question why successful models of health care exist, yet they are being dismissed.


I know nothing about the Swiss system, but I just read this which is interesting...


Taking Another Look at Swiss Health Care

Filed in Health Alerts on August 14, 2009 with 6 comments
The Swiss health care system [gated, but with abstract] has attracted interest from many conservatives because insurance there is mainly private, long-term, and personal and portable. By some estimates it also is the most egalitarian health system in the world. What is less well understood is that when the Swiss replaced mixed government and private financing of health care with mandatory health insurance in 1994, the resultant cost cutting efforts both damaged quality and introduced a lot of waste into the Swiss system.

In 2002, the government banned all new medical practices to control costs. The ban runs until 2010. Until then, a new physician cannot open a practice unless an old physician retires or dies. Efforts to save money by merging hospitals have created irrational allocations of specialty units. Alphonse Crespo, a Swiss orthopedic surgeon, reports that resources are now so poorly distributed that “because of the mergers, the distances between specialty units in some cantons are large.” Patients needing a urologist may have to go to another hospital. Patients have actually been put in helicopters just for a consultation. Researchers at the University of Lausanne report difficulties in accessing psychiatric care, rehabilitation care, long-term care, and orthopedic care. Rationing is more likely to be imposed on the elderly and those with “a poor level of social integration.” Researchers in Geneva report that outcomes from the Swiss reforms suggest that financing health care using social health insurance is more regressive than direct financing. If true, this means that social insurance systems like ObamaCare end up taxing the poor more heavily [gated, but with abstract] than existing systems in which most people pay for their own care and the poor rely on government programs.

Between 1971 and 2005, the average inflation-adjusted general practitioner salary in Switzerland fell by 37 percent before taxes. More young doctors are choosing to become specialists because the pay is better and the work is more interesting. There is a developing shortage of primary care. In March, swissinfo.ch reported that general practitioners held the first doctors’ strike “in living memory.” The government had decided to further ration practitioner access to laboratory tests.

With mandatory health insurance premiums set to rise 15 percent this year, the Swiss government is proposing more cuts. The cuts include restrictions on the type of health insurance that can be offered, restrictions on outpatient services, and a “patient tax” that would require people to pay for their first six visits to a doctor’s office. To make care more difficult to access, Swiss insurers may also be required to offer free telephone medical services as a “first port of call.” Even with the cuts, in some cantons, the mandatory premium increase may be as much as 20 percent.

According to , a site for comparing Swiss insurance premiums, a policy for a 40-year-old in Geneva with roughly a $2,500 deductible has premiums between $2,140 and $3,741 a year for basic coverage. Treatment is limited to the canton of residence, and access to medical care is controlled with one’s HMO or general practitioner acting as a gatekeeper. Hospitalization in a private or semi-private room, the right to choose one’s physician freely, or nationwide coverage requires the purchase of a supplementary plan at additional cost.

People in the US with health insurance generally get broader coverage for less. The exception is in Massachusetts where the 2006 health reform bill incorporated the mandatory insurance requirement and government controls that are the hallmark of the 1994 Swiss reforms. Like the Swiss, the Massachusetts reforms have resulted in high costs, growing waiting lists, and restrictions that make it difficult for patients to get medical care.

Like the Swiss plans, the public plans offered by the Massachusetts Connector Authority are issued to all applicants regardless of health status. They limit treatment to Massachusetts, and feature primary care physicians that control access to care. A 40 year old Boston resident pays $3,240 a year for a $2,000 deductible plan in Massachusetts Connector Authority.

Health insurance costs much less in US states with limited government control of health care and health insurance. In Houston, a 40 year old man has a wide choice of policies with deductibles of $2,500 at prices ranging from $1,236 to $2,673 a year. A 40 year old “uninsurable” Houston man with cancer or another serious health condition can get a policy with a $2,500 deductible for $6,108 a year through the Texas high risk pool. By offering uninsurable people the option of paying more for a policy, Texas keeps health insurance costs down for people who purchase insurance before they become ill. Some states further subsidize high risk pool premiums by reducing them for people with incomes below a specified level.

Even with extensive government involvement, the Swiss have not solved the problem of inequality. The following table shows the variation in age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 women aged 55-74 in four Swiss cantons in 1980-1982 and 2000-2002.
Chart_for_HA_Taking_Another_Look_at_Swiss_Health_Care.jpg
 
Yeah, i know it's the Onion, but that's pretty much the Dem argument along with many posting here - if you don't want nationalized health care, you hate sick people. Doesn't matter if my wife had a pre-existing condition that took her life, doesn't matter that my brother died of a pre-existing condition, I'm against it because I don't like to help sick people....got it, awesome, thanks.

That's not my argument, and I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. And I'm sorry about your wife, as well. The main thing is that people who've dealt with the insurance and health care industries, whether it be because of themselves or a loved one, know something is wrong and needs to be fixed, as you said. I'm not a complete pessimist. I believe most people want others to live happy and healthy.

But I'll stand by my assertion that, for a lot of politicians, helping the sick and infirm is not a priority. Their beliefs, ranging from economic theory to social order, do not emphasize the entire public, or the less fortunate, or the least of these. And that is, I think, backed up by years of political history in this country. The Dems aren't anywhere close to being off the hook for the problem in my book, either, by the way. Their inaction has been just as damning as some Republicans' outright opposition.
 
Yes, I've looked into it. And I've been rejected by every insurance company I applied to. The short version of the story is that I was on a year-long contract with a college and so I had health coverage; during that I was diagnosed with Crohn's. When that contract was up, my coverage ran out. COBRA was ridiculously expensive. Then I started getting turned down by insurance companies. Two years later, I'm back at the same school as an adjunct, and no health care. Finding a full-time job in my field has been a bitch. The high-risk pool insurance that is being offered right now is pretty expensive, too. Depending on my work situation this fall, I'm hoping to apply for it then.

Which is rather the whole problem with the concept of private health insurance. Just because you have a condition, why must your rates go up? Isn't the whole point to share the risk? Share the burden? So people aren't driven in to bankruptcy?

This is the fundamental reason for government services ... to provide services that do not make sense for private industry to provide, and there's simply no profit motive for the private industry to provide affordable care to high-risk customers. We can accept this in other insurance industries. If car insurance became too expensive you could just stop driving, but just stop living is not an acceptable option.
 
The vast majority of Americans want to feel worthwhile and be able to work and take care of their problems.

I totally agree, but if I'm remembering this right, one of the reasons our "safety net" is setup to keep people unemployed is to manage the labor pool supply and demand. If we required welfare recipients to work, the fear is they'd just put someone else making more money doing the same thing out of work.
 
max - do you see anything wrong with this?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Some Canadians are coming to the US for faster healthcare, more americans are going to mexico for affordable healthcare.

Plastic surgery is included in medical tourism.


I usually wait until I have discussed my thoughts with my wife before posting on this thread, but I just have to ask: Why are we assuming the United States government will instantly have the same issues currently held by the Canadian government as soon as we nationalize health care? Who is to say our issues will more accurately mirror the Swiss or Italy?

For the record, I know of the shortcomings of Canada's health care system, which seems to be an issue of supply and demand. If the United States can take all of these foreign dignitaries into their hospitals, where is the supply and demand problem? We don't seem to have one, despite all of our other health care issues.

That's because we have the correct supply of doctors right now. If it becomes less lucrative for one to become a doctor, you'll find less and less.

And as much as we enjoy bashing Canada's health care, the World Health Organization places Canada as #30 while the US lags behind at #37. In other words, it kinda sucks being extremely wealthy in Canada and having a health problem, but it just plain sucks to have a health problem in the United States.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Why when you can buy private insurance in Canada?
 
I don't think you will find anyone, on any side of the argument, that doesn't agree it's broken and needs fixing.

where is the solution then? I don't hear any republicans talking about an actual solution. All I hear them talking about is repealing healthcare reform. I'd feel much better about what they say if they offered a solution and were trying to replace the healthcare reform act with a different solution that they were arguing would work better. Instead all I ever hear are reasons to repeal the act, most of which I see as trying to scare people over health care problems in other nations while ignoring the current health care problems in our nation. What exactly is wrong with the act that needs to be changed and how can it be changed to make it work better? I see a lot of very good things when I loo at what the bill does

- New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level - helps people afford health insurance
- Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions - gets our family out of the $1700/month and rising health insurance nightmare
- Insurers would be required to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26 - that gives my son with diabetes extra time to stay on our policy while he gets a career established

For most people heath care and heath insurance will work much like ti does today. Buy insurance from private insurance companies, be treated by private doctors. The difference is adjustments being made to get more people insured.

What are the problems with the actual act? Talk about wait times in other countries doesn't interest me. We spend substantially more on health care than other countries already. I don't expect that to stop, so the related problems shouldn't happen here either. I read where one problem in canada is they only have about 20% of the number of MRI machines per capita. Our machines aren't going to suddenly disappear. The Cleveland Clinic isn't going to stop investing in new technology and resources because suddenly more of their bills get paid. I read another problem is they don't have as many doctors practicing medicine as we do. Our doctors aren't going to suddenly quit because they now get more reliably paid.

What is the actual problem in the current act, what provable problem is it going to cause, and how do we adjust the act to fix it? A flat out repeal with no replacement plan shouldn't even be an option.
 
What is the actual problem in the current act, what provable problem is it going to cause, and how do we adjust the act to fix it? A flat out repeal with no replacement plan shouldn't even be an option.

I don't know why this is out there still. I've read quite a few alternatives out there to the current obamacare. We have also discussed this in prior threads.

Bottom line as it stands now. You have to repeal the new law first before you can fix anything else. This new law is NOT fixable as has also been discussed. It must be repealed.
 
I don't know why this is out there still. I've read quite a few alternatives out there to the current obamacare. We have also discussed this in prior threads.

Bottom line as it stands now. You have to repeal the new law first before you can fix anything else. This new law is NOT fixable as has also been discussed. It must be repealed.

you can certainly introduce a new bill that replaces the current act without repealing the current act first. It's a mistake to just repeal it and then assume something better would then get passed. Especially with the tactics being used to convince voters they want it repealed.
 
I don't know why this is out there still. I've read quite a few alternatives out there to the current obamacare. We have also discussed this in prior threads.

Not exceptionally well. That is the problem.
 
Again it is the insurance companies as a whole that are the problem and why costs are going up. I work in an industry where I see patient financials. If you have a procedure done that is 1000 and the Insurance is only contracted to pay 46% based on the current fee schedule then of that 1000 the hospital/physician is only allowed to receive $640. Of that 640 the insurance company will usually pay 80% Which is $512.

So from a 1000 charge that a business is trying to collect they are only able to collect 51% in a timely manner (usually take 3 weeks from the time a bill drops till the time an insurance company sends in the payment. Then and only then can they bill the secondary insurance (if there is any) or the patient. if the claim is denied then through the appeal process the hospital or physicians office can bill the patient. However for those that have insurance but their treatments are not deemed medically necessary can foot the entire bill. So when you deny a cancer patient Chemo for the reason of "Not Medically Necessary" and the patient has to pay $35,000 out of pocket when they have insurance). How is that not broken?

The problem is the insurance companies and the way they adjudicate their claims. Think about it this way. You were in a car accident. You file a claim and have about 5000 worth of repairs that need to be done. However the Insurance company says that since your car still runs they aren't covering it and you have to pay the entire 5000 out of pocket.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top