Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If not Obamacare, then what?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Obamacare has become quite the touchy subject, but with all the Obamacare bashing (rightfully so), all the current hype about the horrible government healthcare website, and all the ongoing partisan propaganda and political rhetoric, very little attention has been given to real solutions for the root causes of our healthcare system’s many woes. So here is my best effort to start discussing better solutions.

We already know what the Democrats are currently supporting: Obamacare. But I think it would be fair to say that many (if not most) accepted Obamacare by default, actually preferring a single-payer system (the dreaded “socialist” health care system). A single-payer system basically creates a national, tax-dollar-paid-government-run healthcare as the only option.

This article pertains to Vermont adopting a statewide single-payer option, but gives a good idea of the associated issues:

Pros and Cons of Single-Payer Healthcare

In September, the House Republicans offered this alternative to Obamacare:

A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan

This plan’s highlights include:
-- Replacing the unlimited tax break for employer-provided health insurance with a new tax deduction -- $7,500 for individuals or $20,000 for families -- to purchase health insurance, either through an employer or on their own
-- Insurers may sell policies across state lines
-- $25 billion for high-risk pools to help people who would still be unable to buy insurance

This next link (pdf) from the CBS website also outlines Republican proposals for reforming healthcare, but I believe it’s from prior to the passage of Obamacare (perhaps from June of 09, per the url):

House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan to Increase Affordability, Accessibility, Availability

Personally, I would start with the Australian model which combines both a public and private payer option, much like our public law enforcement agencies co-exist with private security and personal bodyguards. It would be great to hear the experiences and opinions of someone from Australia, including what you like about it and how you would improve it. We can tweak it for our use, learning from Australia’s experiences and mistakes, improving what can be improved, and otherwise tailoring it for Americans’ best interests:

The Australian Health Care System

In my opinion, for the best health care system, we need to make optimum health for all the purpose and the mission; true health care, not just sick care. In other words, keeping ourselves healthy, not just treating ourselves when sick. How we pay for it is just one part of that (and a big part), and in terms of cost alone, there is much to be done. I think our biggest challenge will be slamming shut the revolving door between Big Pharma/Congress/FDA, then reforming the sweetheart patent laws. The federal grant/research program should also be reformed to allow for greater nutritional and herbal research as medicine, as opposed to the narrow interests of big pharma, which increasingly puts profits before health. We can also address costly lawsuits and excessive malpractice awards thru tort reform, “unfavorable outcome” insurance, medication audits, etc. Any further reform effort should begin by establishing a patient’s Bill of Rights, including our ultimate right to determine what – if any – treatments, medications, etc., we will accept or refuse, including “alternative” medicine.

I don’t believe there is one right answer. We need a balanced, multi-front attack. Hence my support for the public AND private option. The free market must be an integral part of the solution, not just because it guarantees the greatest number of options for the most people at the fairest price... but because it also guarantees the greatest power and control for us, the patients. With the proper resources, including education and information, most people can take care of most of their own health care needs most of the time, and want to. Let creative minds and a free market do what it does best. There is so very much we can do to expand availability and reduce costs.

Technology is already creating new resources every day, including “doctor visits” via email and skype and instant messaging at a reduced cost of physically visiting the doctor:

Seeing the Doctor Online

Where E.R. Doctors Work Entirely Via Skype

Some Walmart stores now have independently-run health clinics for customers at reduced cost; and with their buying power, they’ve done wonders to bring down the cost of many drugs:

WalMart Clinics

To hold down costs, insurance companies are establishing (free) telephone hotlines to speak with an R.N. or Nurse Practitioner for advice, often avoiding an unnecessary office visit or, worse, an expensive and unnecessary emergency room visit:

24/7 Nurse Hotline

Speak to a Nurse Hotline

One or more of our federal agencies devoted to health care could easily do the same for minimal cost and maximum public benefit.

Other random thoughts:

*** Federal government could work with state and county hospitals and health care programs, utilizing and subsidizing already established and operating hospitals and other facilities.
*** Current resources – such as school nurse’s offices – could be expanded and/or re-purposed.
*** Government and private health providers could work in partnership, perhaps in a way similar to school vouchers, where tax dollars follow the student and can be applied to charter school or private school tuition. Likewise, tax dollars could follow the patient, and be applied to private health clinics, with the patient paying a surcharge directly to the provider – still much more affordable than a private doctor visit, and probably more accessible for most than govt operated facilities.
*** Some and perhaps much of the cost to implement a public option would be offset by any tax dollars currently spent on healthcare for the few, which could easily be re-directed for the benefit of all.

We can do so much better. I don’t think anyone disagrees that our health care system can and should be improved, we just disagree about how. So lets talk about solutions, find common ground for the greatest good, and stop letting the congress critters shove crappy wasteful crony capitalist programs down our throats.

(This is my first thread of substance that I’ve started. I’ll refrain from begging your mercy and kindness but will beg your forgiveness for rookie mistakes!)




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The USA has had a system in place for YEARS that works. It's called Medicare/Medicade. All that was needed was to issue each person a number (and reasonable bill) for a system that already exists.

However this plan had one fatal flaw. It would put all health insurance (for profit) companies out of business. Since lobbyists work for them so does Government. So this, despite being the easiest and simplest way to move to National Health care, is NEVER going to happen.

Freaking Insurance companies need to make PROFIT. Personally? Screw them and screw any plan that is not equal for all across the board. I will NEVER buy Obamacare, rather pay the fine.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The key is keeping government OUT of health care... this government isn't even half-qualified to run amok, let alone run any multi-billion dollar industry...



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 




If not Obamacare, then what?


The biggest thing is something that is rarely addressed; the middle man that stands firmly between the patient and the healthcare provider.

Can you guess who/what this middleman is?

If there was a way for the average American to go see a doctor minus the cost of paying this multi-billion dollar middleman, the cost of such a visit would come down dramatically. Unfortunately, even though Obamacare originally promised a 'public option', that was quickly... and quietly set aside at the behest of this middleman.

As ling as there is this expansive obstacle blocking the path between patient and doctor/service, nothing will really change except the cost going up.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 


Well I always recommend this article, although I doubt anyone read through it and fully understood what it was saying.

www.comedsoc.org...


Basically the idea is that you abolish the government required health insurance system that is employer tied.

Here is excerpt, I don't agree with the 50k threshhold but of course that would be decided by actuaries and the free market:


The most important single step we can take toward truly reforming our system is to move away from comprehensive health insurance as the single model for financing care. And a guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system. I believe if the government took on the goal of better supporting consumers—by bringing greater transparency and competition to the health-care industry, and by directly subsidizing those who can’t afford care—we’d find that consumers could buy much more of their care directly than we might initially think, and that over time we’d see better care and better service, at lower cost, as a result.

A more consumer-centered health-care system would not rely on a single form of financing for health-care purchases; it would make use of different sorts of financing for different elements of care—with routine care funded largely out of our incomes; major, predictable expenses (including much end-of-life care) funded by savings and credit; and massive, unpredictable expenses funded by insurance.

For years, a number of reformers have advocated a more “consumer-driven” care system—a term coined by the Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, who has written extensively on the subject. Many different steps could move us toward such a system. Here’s one approach that—although it may sound radical—makes sense to me.

First, we should replace our current web of employer- and government-based insurance with a single program of catastrophic insurance open to all Americans—indeed, all Americans should be required to buy it—with fixed premiums based solely on age. This program would be best run as a single national pool, without underwriting for specific risk factors, and would ultimately replace Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. All Americans would be insured against catastrophic illness, throughout their lives.

Proposals for true catastrophic insurance usually founder on the definition of catastrophe. So much of the amount we now spend is dedicated to problems that are considered catastrophic, the argument goes, that a separate catastrophic system is pointless. A typical catastrophic insurance policy today might cover any expenses above, say, $2,000. That threshold is far too low; ultimately, a threshold of $50,000 or more would be better. (Chronic conditions with expected annual costs above some lower threshold would also be covered.) We might consider other mechanisms to keep total costs down: the plan could be required to pay out no more in any year than its available premiums, for instance, with premium increases limited to the general rate of inflation. But the real key would be to restrict the coverage to true catastrophes—if this approach is to work, only a minority of us should ever be beneficiaries.

How would we pay for most of our health care? The same way we pay for everything else—out of our income and savings. Medicare itself is, in a sense, a form of forced savings, as is commercial insurance. In place of these programs and the premiums we now contribute to them, and along with catastrophic insurance, the government should create a new form of health savings account—a vehicle that has existed, though in imperfect form, since 2003. Every American should be required to maintain an HSA, and contribute a minimum percentage of post-tax income, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do.

All noncatastrophic care should eventually be funded out of HSAs. But account-holders should be allowed to withdraw money for any purpose, without penalty, once the funds exceed a ceiling established for each age, and at death any remaining money should be disbursed through inheritance. Our current methods of health-care funding create a “use it or lose it” imperative. This new approach would ensure that families put aside funds for future expenses, but would not force them to spend the funds only on health care.

What about care that falls through the cracks—major expenses (an appendectomy, sports injury, or birth) that might exceed the current balance of someone’s HSA but are not catastrophic? These should be funded the same way we pay for most expensive purchases that confer long-term benefits: with credit. Americans should be able to borrow against their future contributions to their HSA to cover major health needs; the government could lend directly, or provide guidelines for private lending. Catastrophic coverage should apply with no deductible for young people, but as people age and save, they should pay a steadily increasing deductible from their HSA, unless the HSA has been exhausted. As a result, much end-of-life care would be paid through savings.

Anyone with whom I discuss this approach has the same question: How am I supposed to be able to afford health care in this system? Well, what if I gave you $1.77 million? Recall, that’s how much an insured 22-year-old at my company could expect to pay—and to have paid on his and his family’s behalf—over his lifetime, assuming health-care costs are tamed. Sure, most of that money doesn’t pass through your hands now. It’s hidden in company payments for premiums, or in Medicare taxes and premiums. But think about it: If you had access to those funds over your lifetime, wouldn’t you be able to afford your own care? And wouldn’t you consume health care differently if you and your family didn’t have to spend that money only on care?

For lower-income Americans who can’t fund all of their catastrophic premiums or minimum HSA contributions, the government should fill the gap—in some cases, providing all the funding. You don’t think we spend an absurd amount of money on health care? If we abolished Medicaid, we could spend the same money to make a roughly $3,000 HSA contribution and a $2,000 catastrophic-premium payment for 60 million Americans every year. That’s a $12,000 annual HSA plus catastrophic coverage for a low-income family of four. Do we really believe most of them wouldn’t be better off?

Some experts worry that requiring people to pay directly for routine care would cause some to put off regular checkups. So here’s a solution: the government could provide vouchers to all Americans for a free checkup every two years. If everyone participated, the annual cost would be about $30 billion—a small fraction of the government’s current spending on care.

Today, insurance covers almost all health-care expenditures. The few consumers who pay from their pockets are simply an afterthought for most providers. Imagine how things might change if more people were buying their health care the way they buy anything else. I’m certain that all the obfuscation over prices would vanish pretty quickly, and that we’d see an end to unreadable bills. And that physicians, who spend an enormous amount of time on insurance-related paperwork, would have more time for patients.

In fact, as a result of our fraying insurance system, you can already see some nascent features of a consumer-centered system. Since 2006, Wal-Mart has offered $4 prescriptions for a month’s supply of common generic medications. It has also been slowly rolling out retail clinics for routine care such as physicals, blood work, and treatment for common ailments like strep throat. Prices for each service are easily obtained; most are in the neighborhood of $50 to $80. Likewise, “concierge care,” or the “boutique” style of medical practice—in which physicians provide unlimited services and fast appointments in return for a fixed monthly or annual fee—is beginning to spread from the rich to the middle class. Qliance Medical Group, for instance, now operates clinics serving some 3,000 patients in the Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, areas, charging $49 to $79 a month for unlimited primary care, defined expansively.

It’s worth pausing over this last example. Many experts believe that the U.S. would get better health outcomes at lower cost if payment to providers were structured around the management of health or whole episodes of care, instead of through piecemeal fees. Medicare and private insurers have, to various degrees, moved toward (or at least experimented with) these sorts of payments, and are continuing to do so—but slowly, haltingly, and in the face of much obstruction by providers. But aren’t we likely to see just these sorts of payment mechanisms develop organically in a consumer-centered health-care system? For simplicity and predictability, many people will prefer to pay a fixed monthly or annual fee for primary or chronic care, and providers will move to serve that demand.

Likewise, what patient, when considering getting an artificial hip, would want to deal with a confusion of multiple bills from physicians, facilities, and physical therapists? Aren’t providers likely to organize themselves to provide a single price to the consumer for care and rehabilitation? And won’t that, in itself, put pressure on providers to work together as efficiently as possible, and to minimize the medical errors that would eat into their joint fee? I suspect we would see a rapid decline in the predominance of the fee-for-service model, making way for real innovation and choice in service plans and funding. And the payment system would not be set by fiat; it would remain responsive to treatment breakthroughs and changes in consumer demand.

Many consumers would be able to make many decisions, unaided, in such a system. But we’d also probably see the rise of health-care agents—paid by, and responsible to, the consumer—to help choose providers and to act as advocates during long and complex care episodes.

How else might the system change? Technological innovation—which is now almost completely insensitive to costs, and which often takes the form of slightly improved treatments for much higher prices—would begin to concern itself with value, not just quality. Many innovations might drive prices down, not up. Convenient, lower-cost specialty centers might proliferate. The need for unpaid indigent care would go away—everyone, recall, would have both catastrophic insurance and an HSA, funded entirely by the government when necessary—and with it much of the rationale for protecting hospitals against competition.

Of course, none of this would happen overnight. And the government has an essential role to play in arming consumers with good information. Congress should require maximum transparency on services, prices, and results (and some elements of the Obama administration’s reform plan would move the industry in this direction). We should establish a more comprehensive system of quality inspection of all providers, and publish all the findings. Safety and efficacy must remain the cornerstone of government licensing, but regulatory bias should favor competition and prevent incumbents from using red tape to forestall competition.

Moving from the system we’ve got now to the one I’ve outlined would be complicated, and would take a long time. Most of us have been paying into an insurance system for years, expecting that our future health-care bills would be paid; we haven’t been saving separately for these expenses. It would take a full generation to completely migrate from relying on Medicare to saving for late-life care; from Medicaid for the disadvantaged to catastrophic insurance and subsidized savings accounts. Such a transition would require the slow reduction of Medicare taxes, premiums, and benefit levels for those not yet eligible, and a corresponding slow ramp-up in HSAs. And the national catastrophic plan would need to start with much broader coverage and higher premiums than the ultimate goal, in order to fund the care needed today by our aging population. Nonetheless, the benefits of a consumer-centered approach—lower costs for better service—should have early and large dividends for all of us throughout the period of transition. The earlier we start, the less a transition will ultimately cost.

Many experts oppose the whole concept of a greater role for consumers in our health-care system. They worry that patients lack the necessary knowledge to be good consumers, that unscrupulous providers will take advantage of them, that they will overspend on low-benefit treatments and under-spend on high-benefit preventive care, and that such waste will leave some patients unable to afford highly beneficial care.

They are right, of course. Whatever replaces our current system will be flawed; that’s the nature of health care and, indeed, of all human institutions. Our current system features all of these problems already—as does the one the Obama reforms would create. Because health care is so complex and because each individual has a unique health profile, no system can be perfect.

I believe my proposed approach passes two meaningful tests. It will do a better job than our current system of controlling prices, allocating resources, expanding access, and safeguarding quality. And it will do a better job than a more government-driven approach of harnessing medicine’s dynamism to develop and spread the new knowledge, technologies, and techniques that improve the quality of life. We won’t be perfect consumers, but we’re more likely than large bureaucracies to encourage better medicine over time.

All of the health-care interest groups—hospitals, insurance companies, professional groups, pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, even advocates for the poor—have a major stake in the current system. Overturning it would favor only the 300 million of us who use the system and—whether we realize it or not—pay for it. Until we start asking the type of questions my father’s death inspired me to ask, until we demand the same price and quality accountability in health care that we demand in everything else, each new health-care reform will cost us more and serve us less.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Going by the World Health Organization ranking of Health systems worldwide from 2000 (the ranking system caused such a furor the 2010 survey opted out of placing ranks), France stood as #1

#1 France Healthcare (2000 WHO Report)

Out of that report, 36 other nations reported better than the US.

Hmm.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Thank you very much for the responses. I would have responded sooner if my computer would have cooperated.

Mamatus and Redoubt:

Unfortunately, you're right about insurance companies. Which it doesn't have to be. Insurance companies could play a positive and proactive part in this battle; but in this crony capitalist environment, insurance companies are enabled and empowered to make their profits (note I did not say "earn" their profits) by NOT providing a quality product at a reasonable price. Obamacare has only compounded that problem, but has also brought many of the problems with relying solely on insurance to handle all of our healthcare needs. Especially by forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions. Obviously, this is entirely unsustainable for insurance, which is designed and intended for "what If", not "already." I would liken it to the difference between auto insurance and an auto warranty, and I would note that even warranties do not cover regular maintenance costs.

Insurance is great when it works, but it has its limitations. For one thing, as Redoubt noted, it puts a middle man between the consumer and the provider, obscuring and increasing costs, limiting options, and putting profit before health. That's at best. At worst, insurance is often lost when people need it most -- often after paying into it for years. A person with a long-term illness, even if treatable, will miss work, and therefore lose money, and ultimately not be able to pay the premiums -- so they're cut off. The situation is even more dire for someone who has a terminal illness, but doesn't die before racking up piles of bills to be left for their family.

MadMac:

So very true. Much like I said about insurance companies above, government could (and should) play a positive role in this mess. But everything they touch turns to crony capitalist crap. At this point, I would prefer to take my chances with an unregulated totally free market health care approach and kick the sorry government arses our of our health care, our medicines, our food, and our farms!

Orphan:

Thank you for the link. I read it thru once, but there's alot to digest! I'll have to read it again before I comment.

Alice:

Thank you for that link. I need to read it before I comment -- and the links that it sources too. Looks quite interesting already.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 


Be sure to read the whole article if you can. I know it's long, but the author did a great job in my opinion. There are a few other theories I have as far as what type of systems would replace the current one but I think he hit the nail on the head.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
#1 Repeal Obamacare - any bill that has to be passed without anyone knowing what is in it is criminal, too bad we can't indite all who voted for this law without reading it and knowing exactly what was in a bill that affects the health and well being of every single American.

#2 Allow interstate policies within all 50 states, that raises the pools and increases competition which always lowers cost

#3 Encourage health care savings plans that allow you to carry unused balances for your lifetime or the ability to donate excess funds to an immediate family member; then have a low cost catastrophic coverage

#4 It would be cheaper to have one free health clinic with one MD for every 1000 Medcaid patients in a given area and allow anyone without insurance to use it and do away with Medicaid except for catastrophic care. Any MD's who serve (paid, double the average resident salary, liability insurance paid by the clinic) in a clinic for 4 years would have his/her medical school student loans forgiven (an average of over 250-500K these days). This would be way cheaper than Obamacare and Medicare.

#5 Another alternative is for the government to give every Medicaid family and uninsured person a medical savings account and catastrophic coverage similar to #3 and give the family/person a 10% rebate on the unused balance per year.
Example, they have $5000 in their account at the end of a year they get a check for $500, to encourage using healthcare wisely. This would cost less than Obamacare and Medicare.

#6 REPEAL OBAMACARE - because the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) said that if Obamacare were a private company the board of directors (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) would be indited for perpetrating fraud on the American people and be headed to jail. ---- for knowingly lying multiple times in multiple venues for over 3 years about "if you like your policy you can keep it."



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


Great Post here , you said , and covered it all . There was Never a Need for Goverment Sponsered Heath Care to begin with , it was just Political Theather by the Nanny State Sedationists to gain more Control over peoples Lives .



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OrphanApology
 


That's a great article and hits the nail on the head in so many ways! With so much information, I'm still going to read thru it again, especially the numbers... those always take me a couple reads to fully comprehend. This guy looks at the issues from all angles, and that's exactly what we need. Not a band-aid style one-size-fits-all solution. He also points out that many of the problems we have are BECAUSE of government intervention:



"All of the actors in health care—from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies—work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results."


He further states (and I agree), that:



"To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy."


Source: The Atlantic

(with thanks to OrphanApology)

This where we need to START. No matter how noble and laudable it is to want to ensure health care for everyone, if we don't address the root causes of our problems, our efforts will be a colossal waste of time, money and energy, and could continue to at least as much harm as good -- perhaps even more.

I also like what he says about HSAs and catastrophic plans, but I want to read that through again before commenting on it. My concern with catastrophic plans is that as valuable as they can be, for someone with no job, it's still just plain out of reach, which brings us right back where we are now.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


Excellent points -- every one! Thank you!

HSAs should be part of any reforms going forward. They're practical, effective, and the best part of all, keep us (the patient) in control of how and where our health care dollars are spent. They could be tweaked in several ways to allow us all greater flexibility and options. And I especially like that you included Medicaid recipients in the HSAs. They need to have a personal stake in their own healthcare. In my experience with people on government aid, too often they've seemed to have given up on controlling their own destiny and decisions, resigned to letting the wind (government) blow them where it will. Give them more control in one area of life, and they will learn to use it and apply it to other areas.

I look at it as the difference between empowering people with the means and responsibility to make their own choices, or subjugating people to the will of others.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


Great Post here , you said , and covered it all . There was Never a Need for Goverment Sponsered Heath Care to begin with , it was just Political Theather by the Nanny State Sedationists to gain more Control over peoples Lives .


I have to disagree just a little bit here... I do think there is a place for government in health care, but what we have now is NOT it. Obamacare (and most other efforts to reform -- read: fundamentally transform -- healthcare) is just another naked power grab by nanny state sedationists (I love that!).



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 


Here's the full PDF to the article and I really appreciate you reading through it.

www.comedsoc.org...

Also in regard to catastrophe insurance if it had a model that was genuinely catastrophes only then the premiums would be far, far lower than what we are used to with the current health insurance models. Regular insurance is not that expensive if you only buy it for rare and catastrophic events. Just look at traditional life insurance. If you are 35 and buy a 30 year term policy for example, the premiums are actually pretty low.
edit on 18-11-2013 by OrphanApology because: d



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I had an ER visit a few years ago in Taiwan. US citizen, so I paid full price, out of pocket.

Spent a few hours there, I had an x-ray, a couple shots, consulted with a Dr. or two, and was given 2 or 3 prescriptions to take with me. (turned out I was dehydrated)

Grand total out of my pocket....$85. Full price.


I think our main problem stems from massively out of control medical costs more than anything else.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


85?

You got off easy.

I went to the ER a few years back because my fever was 102 and wasn't breaking and they wound up charging me 500.

500 bucks for them to tell me nothing was wrong and to give me two Tylenols.


EDIT: I Read that wrong, it says Taiwan...my bad.
edit on 18-11-2013 by OrphanApology because: d



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphanApology
 


I was in Taiwan. That was the going rate for the stuff they did to me.

I'm sure in the US it would have been way more expensive for the same thing.


ETA, I saw your edit. I know I can't even walk into the Emergency room here for under $1000. I

edit on 18-11-2013 by tjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Get rid of insurance and make people pay cash for health care. If the health care companies want to make money they will lower the price of health care.

Or sell catastrophic only.

Everyone wants to talk about the cost of insurance but no one wants to talk about the cost of the health care itself. The root of the problem is the bloated cost of care.

You could also talk about the cost to become a doctor. If it costs 200k to become a doctor, they have to pass those school loan payments on when they begin to practice.

Not to mention the cost of becoming a chemist who develops the drugs etc etc.

Drop the regulation and subsidies for all things related to medical and the cost of medical care will fall dramatically. Why do you think it costs .75 a pill in Mexico VS $10 a pill in the US?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 


It's crazy. I have considered after finishing my degree moving to another country to teach English(or Finance if they are interested lol) just because I get the feeling in many ways my health and mentality would be better. Better access to medicine, cleaner food(gmos aren't in many places)... I wouldn't worry about water because I know how to build a distillery.

I've seriously thought about it. 85 bucks for all of that is what the price should be if the current health insurance scam hadn't of happened in the U.S.

Imagine how much oil changes would cost if there was employer tied car insurance that the government required to pay for them. They'd be 500 in a week.

It's just crazy how much higher it is here.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by YayMayorBee
 


I agree.

Government regulations on medicines and doctors is not making us any safer(one of the worst complication rates in the developed world) and increases costs on everything.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join