It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nationalised health care

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: DAVID64


Yeah. Damn the facts, let's have feel good story time.


Yea what's the problem? People are losing their houses, their livelyhoods due to skyrocketing healthcare costs, so who cares right? The US spends more than any other developed country in the United States, and you don't seem to think this is something to be concerned about?



Yes, and the single biggest increase came with Obamacare. Anyone who isn't considered poor had their prices doubled or worse. And if you can't afford it, you get fined.




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It you polled the UK and asked whether they want to keep the NHS likely 90% would say yes!

It one of the few things us brits are religiously proud and protective of.
Actually so much so its a problem as its near impossible to modanize it!

But for us Brits to be so protective of it in the first place says alot about it. A abject failure would not be that popular.

If you asked brits if they want a US healthcare system most replys would be F off!



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I'd love to see a video where a bunch of random Brits of varying ages are sat down and explained in detail how the US insurance system works.

"Wait, so I pay HOW much every month even if I'm never sick? And that's so *if* I get sick the insurance company MAY pay for my medical bill, and they still could turn down and deny payment?...All over a bill that I would otherwise NEVER be able to afford anyway?"

Yeah, when you step back and look at how medical insurance works in the USA, it looks pretty asinine.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: peter_kandra

The truth is, the "average" premium (the monthly bill you pay to the insurance company) hasn't really increased anymore than it historically has. The Kasier Foundation does an annual "Employee Healthcare Benefits Summary". Their findings?



Premiums for single and family coverage increased by 4% in 2015, continuing a fairly long period (2005 to 2015) where annual premium growth has averaged about 5%. T

Kaiser Foundation

The thing is, that's an average. Some pay more, some less. Why then are we hearing about all these people who's insurance premiums have gone up?

Well, the people who are now paying less aren't screaming and yelling and making noise about it for starters. People tend to get a lot louder when they have to pay more for things.

Also, it appears that some now pay less, and now some pay more -- but in the end the net average nationwide is flat. The total costs haven't gone up, but rather WHO is paying more and WHO is paying less appears to have changed.

That's whats going on from reading the report -- as a nation we aren't paying more...rather different people are now paying different amounts.


I definitely get that it's an average. My issue is paying substantially more for far less coverage than I had pre-ACA.
You'll have to forgive me for having the mindset that I base purchases for my family on our specific needs and budget, and have a big issue being forced to buy something I don't want or need.

Had the medicare tax been expanded in order to cover the uninsured, I'm pretty sure it would have been cheaper, and my premium increases and coverage would have remained much more stable. Even doubling it to 2.90% would have been an extra $1450 a year or so on someone making 100K. I'm pretty sure ACA related premiums and increased out of pocket costs have risen more than that
edit on 21-10-2015 by peter_kandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: peter_kandra

Yeah totally -- I get you. I wanted to see what was going on. I found something interesting. It's called "medical underwriting"":




The first, Claxton said, is that although average premiums aren't rising any faster, the premiums differ less from company to company. Before the law was passed, those premiums were based in part on the health and age of the employees using the plan, which meant that employers with younger or healthier workers could pay significantly less.

By barring that practice, known as medical underwriting, for small employers, and by tightening age-based rate-setting, Obamacare increased costs for those companies, Claxton said. If you work at a company that employs 10 healthy workers in their 20s, it's possible that the premiums you pay have risen considerably.

Bloomberg

Right there, there's ONE reason why some people are now paying more. When I read that I scratched my head and went, "Wut?" Why are we doing that? What was wrong with it before?

Perhaps its been changed so more money is available for other people who can't afford the ACA on their own? I have no idea -- but I do know that the devil is in the DETAILS, and no one seems to be digging into those details. No one seems to be asking WHY they're paying more and calling the government to the carpet for it.

I have a feeling the ACA was designed to break the American healthcare industry, or it was some kind of nefarious back room deal to the insurance companies.

Private insurance companies will lobby hard to prevent a national healthcare system in the USA -- their very business model and livelihood would be at stake. We own't see it happen as long as they continue to buy politicians and elections.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I remember telling my friends other there.

One of them just couldn't get her head round the idea that no matter how often her daughter was ill, even if minor they would not have to pay


The idea of Healthcare being a human right here not a commodity was alien to them

edit on 21-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I know, and there was a time when people were motivated to be doctors in order to help people and have a respected, stable career. People always need doctors, you can always find work as one...

I wonder sometimes what motivates young doctors more, money or helping people? I bet they initially want to help people, but after looking at the their student loan debt decide to go for the money as much as they can.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
If the churches were to lose tax exemption, it would pretty much pay for nationalised medicine in the US.
I mean, that's what Jesus would do, right?

When you turn healthcare into a business, you lose sight of what it's about. The insurance companies, big pharma etc. don't really give a crap about anyone. They just hope they can make more profit. They can, and did survive on smaller profits.

No other modern country has a health system like the US. I'm sure they could should they want it. The fact is, they just don't.

In the UK, for example, there is nothing that precludes having additional private insurance. Many do have it, and still pay a lot less than their counterparts in the US. When you compare paying a little more in taxes, PLUS some private healthcare insurance, it still comes to a lot less than a premium for healthcare insurance in the US. In addition, nobody is going to lose their house should they suddenly get seriously ill.

I guess it's a matter of caring about people. People like to think they are patriotic, but caring about the people who live in your country is part of that.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I`ll try to answer as best i can!



1. Medicine : is the individual 100% responsible to pay for their medicines and treatments or is that covered by the gov't?


This really depends what kind of medicine and in what aspect it is given. Basically you have a sett amount you have to take care of yourself when buying prescription medicine or going to the doctors office (about 300 US$). If one exeeds this amount, every prescription medicine is free when undergoing treatment. Advil and other non prescription drugs you have to take care of your self.

When it comes to treatments, they are always free if you have a health issue. This includes MRI / CT scans / Chemotherapy and other treatments.

so basically and in practice all treatments needed and prescribed are always covered 100% by the gov`t.



2. Middleman: Does the basic everyone covered healthcare plan involve privatised insurance corporations at all or does the state take the role of insurance companies?


I dont have a lot of experience with this but to my knowledge, if i understand your question correct, the state do not refer individuals to private institutions for care. Nor are these institutions subsidized in any way by the gov`t.
I have to point out, there is no basic healthcare plan. As a citizen it`s your right to receive the care needed, if and when it happens. always. Everywhere.

You could say the state take the role of insurance companies, but they won't operate the same way. Theres no questions about coverage for example. You are covered no matter what.

Hope you found this informative.
edit on 21-10-2015 by maplecustom because: edit



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok



I would move back to Europe. Tear up those stupid US medical bills and forgot about them!


I will not, I was born here, I have dreamt about "going home" since I was a little girl.
I was here on 911, on an "investigative visit" and on that day I knew this was where I belonged. This is my home. Every inch of it. I won't give up.
But it is hard. And yet so rewarding. I hope things will evolve to a better place. Because this is the most beautiful piece of land in the world, so full of potential.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: crazyewok

I know, and there was a time when people were motivated to be doctors in order to help people and have a respected, stable career. People always need doctors, you can always find work as one...

I wonder sometimes what motivates young doctors more, money or helping people? I bet they initially want to help people, but after looking at the their student loan debt decide to go for the money as much as they can.


Can you blame them? University, and medical school in particular is very expensive. It also takes a lot of work in order to actually become a doctor, the training gets more and more complicated every year. When you graduate half a million dollars in debt and are then faced with all of the expensive realities of being a doctor, can you blame them for chasing some money? Even the ones who aren't doing it to be rich still need to make enough to take care of themselves, their family, repay debt, and maintain a private practice.

This is true of a lot of professions actually. The services would be cheaper if the schooling, maintaining their knowledge, and insurance weren't so expensive but even in that case, with the body of medical knowledge growing every single year the demands on doctors grows daily. One possible solution may be increased specialization so that each individual needs less knowledge and training.
edit on 21-10-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: maplecustom

Yes thank you for taking the time to reply.


Unfortunately it sounds like your system has very little in commom with Obamacare . Obamacare utilizes private corporations as the middleman to provide insurance versus services as your govt does. The problem with that is that's in the best interest of those corporations to charge the most they can while delivering the least amount of service to turn profits over time.

Obamacare is about insurance not healthcare.

I would have prefered your system where ur taxes are used to cover the healthcare cost versus private corporations who have to provide the same service. However those corporations must also beat last years profit ,year after year to keep the major stock holder happy. It's a system that will cost more and will provide less service as time goes on and with their lobbying power push the Grey area further away.


edit on 041031America/ChicagoWed, 21 Oct 2015 22:04:33 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 071031America/ChicagoWed, 21 Oct 2015 22:07:24 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I've trained people with no experience or comprehensive knowledge how to do very complicated and specific tasks. I'm pretty confident that you could train a reasonably competent individual how to do a specific medical surgery if they practiced enough.

With practically all medical knowledge now stored electronically, and super computers like Watson able to diagnose and recommend potential treatments, fewer doctors could actually be in our future. Specialists that only do one or two computer-prescribed operations could be seen in the healthcare industry some day. You'd still have doctors; but they'd be relegated to overseeing things.

I picture a future where a diagnostic medical AI takes into account all the blood work, tests, and symptoms and then cross references them with all past documented cases and potential treatments to suggest a course of action -- which is carried out by highly specialized individuals who only do the same procedure over and over. Imagine if one person ONLY did triple bypasses day in, day out. Someone else did quadruple bypasses day in, day out ect. Each of these people would be paid less than an actual doctor, but it would put more people to work and the net cost would come out about the same or possibly a bit less.

And that's not even taking into account robotics...pair surgical robots with computer AI's...



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't think that most of the doctors are getting as much as some seem to think anymore. many of them have been forced out of private practice and into the huge health provider corps, and well, have not only lost their freedom to decide how much they charge their patients, cut their expenses as they see fit, but also just what procedures they take when it comes to treating those patients. And then they have the gov't/insurance companies wanting to pay less and less money for those treatments. Although they are making a decent living (maybe, or maybe the student loans and insurance is eating up that salary.) I don't think they are the ones getting rich. It's the upper management of both the large companies that are providing the healthcare and the insurance companies that are the ones getting rich off it. The doctors, unfortunately, have become just another slave in the system...



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: maplecustom

Yes thank you for taking the time to reply.


Unfortunately it sounds like your system has very little in commom with Obamacare . Obamacare utilizes private corporations as the middleman to provide insurance versus services as your govt does. The problem with that is that's in the best interest of those corporations to charge the most they can while delivering the least amount of service to turn profits over time.

Obamacare is about insurance not healthcare.

I would have prefered your system where ur taxes are used to cover the healthcare cost versus private corporations who have to provide the same service. However those corporations must also beat last years profit ,year after year to keep the major stock holder happy. It's a system that will cost more and will provide less service as time goes on and with their lobbying power push the Grey area further away.



I agree. Although being a step in the right direction, it kinda stil is the same product packed in different wrapping.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Mystic, this is the huge mistake that too many non-medical people make.

People are not machines. You can't train a person to just a treat a symptom, and expect an ultimum result. The arm bone is connected to the hand bone training, leaves out a lot of very important structures in between. Structures that should be there and maybe some that shouldn't.

Insurance companies and hospitals are using software products that are supposed to verify if a person is sick enough, or the vernacular of their choice is, meet the criteria for hospitalization, but you can't diagnosis a person with an algorithm.

People are individuals and even if they are identical twins, there isn't any guarantee that every cell in their body or even organs will be "identical".

It is hard to explain, but sometimes even when all the tests come back normal, and all the numbers are perfect, there can still be something seriously wrong that skill and technical experience is going to miss.

I worked in shock trauma long enough to know that no matter how perfect the algorithm claims a patient to be, you had better go with that mystical gut rhythm everytime, if you want to save the patient.

Averages are only a starting point. If you use them as your bible, you are throwing out everyone that runs along the spectrum, that is a lot of people when you factor them in along the complete scale. Keeping in mind that very few people actually clock in at exactly the mid range mark, and even then, usually on only one or two measures.

I don't want a robotic, mechanical or human, doing surgery on me, it/they may be focused and precise, unfortunately, my body isn't.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
gotta repeal right wing obamacare then institute single payer



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: peter_kandra

Yeah totally -- I get you. I wanted to see what was going on. I found something interesting. It's called "medical underwriting"":




The first, Claxton said, is that although average premiums aren't rising any faster, the premiums differ less from company to company. Before the law was passed, those premiums were based in part on the health and age of the employees using the plan, which meant that employers with younger or healthier workers could pay significantly less.

By barring that practice, known as medical underwriting, for small employers, and by tightening age-based rate-setting, Obamacare increased costs for those companies, Claxton said. If you work at a company that employs 10 healthy workers in their 20s, it's possible that the premiums you pay have risen considerably.

Bloomberg

Right there, there's ONE reason why some people are now paying more. When I read that I scratched my head and went, "Wut?" Why are we doing that? What was wrong with it before?

Perhaps its been changed so more money is available for other people who can't afford the ACA on their own? I have no idea -- but I do know that the devil is in the DETAILS, and no one seems to be digging into those details. No one seems to be asking WHY they're paying more and calling the government to the carpet for it.

I have a feeling the ACA was designed to break the American healthcare industry, or it was some kind of nefarious back room deal to the insurance companies.

Private insurance companies will lobby hard to prevent a national healthcare system in the USA -- their very business model and livelihood would be at stake. We own't see it happen as long as they continue to buy politicians and elections.


Young people are healthier and they can save even more money by not having insurance at all, but conservatives at the heritage institute that wrote obamacare whined about those "freeriders".



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




I have a feeling the ACA was designed to break the American healthcare industry, or it was some kind of nefarious back room deal to the insurance companies.


I got that same feeling.

3 largest healthcare insurance provider:

Earnings In Billions after Obamacare
edit on 181031America/ChicagoFri, 23 Oct 2015 13:18:06 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Specialization makes it easier to train people to a degree, but there are still certain things you need to know. Personally I find it hard to argue for specialization because I'm a polymath and using that wide body of knowledge to solve problems in unique ways is very natural to me.

On the other hand, I recognize that most people don't have the tolerance for the learning process that I do, the patience to gain the knowledge, or even the opportunity to. For a lot of people life happens and they end up with a lot of demands on their time as well as responsibilities that require them to use their time working rather than improving. Specialization can really help here in teaching indepth knowledge, you can potentially have a heart surgeon for example that only needs 4 years of schooling rather than 12 and that makes the profession more accessible.

One interesting thing though is that this is effectively applying the principals of an assembly line to every profession. One of the big drawbacks in assembly lines is that the workers tend to become bored and less productive, it also makes the working experience worse and reducing quality of life is somewhat defeating the purpose of specialization in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join