Obamacare Spawning 'Medical Homelessness' Crisis

a reply to: willcallzzzzz
Then perhaps the answer is in the problem. If these people cannot get the drugs that keep them anaesthetised and eventually cannot afford the TV that does the same, perhaps they will wake. Healthcare is free at the point of use in the UK but very expensive in reality. However, it is becoming slowly inaccessible.

Seeing the mess my parents and alot of older people are in from taking an assortment of meds, perhaps the NHS being so difficult to access will be a good thing in the long run. In time, you may find the same. At what point in time did local doctors turn into the local drug dealers who are paid a bonus for giving more of whatever drug the pharma companies are pushing that month? That's the way it is here and I don't think that is medicine. First do no harm, seems to be being ignored by a lot of medics.

In the UK the govt is in the process of trying to sell our medical records to be 'used' by private companies. If anything this might be a sign to the awakened to stay away from govt doctors if you don't want your privacy spilled to the highest bidder.

originally posted by: Cabin
The US healthcare system was already weak before Obamacare. Just give it some time. I have yet to see such a major overhaul of a sector working perfectly from the beginning. Expecting it to work currently is just naive.

This is true, but accepting a fix just because it is a fix is wrong. You need to look at what the fix entails to make sure it actually FIXES things and doesn't break it more, which is what the ACA is doing. You have also acknowledged that the ACA is flawed with your claim that the US will opt for universal health care (more on that in a minute).

I doubt any repeal will ever happen. If this proves to be a real failure (at least a few years is needed for it), hopefully US will decide for universal healthcare, which has proven itself in near to every other advanced nation.

All that needs to happen for a repeal to go through, is the Republicans take the Senate and Presidency, and they won't even need the Presidency if they can obtain a super-majority and override any vetoes that Obama signs. Also, the ACA is proof that Americans aren't going to EVER get universal health care. The Democrats had EVERY opportunity to pass universal health care when they had a super-majority (and don't give me any nonsense about republican compromises, no republican voted for the ACA, so its not like the democrats couldn't have gotten EXACTLY what they wanted through congress). No, we won't be getting universal health care because that would put the health insurance industry out of business and the current government can't let ANY private industry die no matter how outdated and inefficient they are. Instead we squelch new ideas, stifle competition, and subsidize these industries. In other words we are smothering America's innovation in favor of 19th and 20th century ideas when we live in the 21st century.

a reply to: Cabin
After having what was considered good healthcare years before Obamacare, I have observed that HMO clinics steadily become much more overcrowded over the last years resembling a DMV, a revolving door of sorts and the doctors are so busy they do not have time to really concentrate on what could be ailing you, they treat you as though you are reporting a cold to them in many cases and send you on your way, never really doing any real or serious evaluation and hurriedly move on to the next patient.

So you can imagine that Obamacare will only complicate the already mediocre system of healthcare in many ways, if the government manages anything it always adds another layer of bureaucracy and time overhead to the process, I do everything possible to avoid having to see a doctor to begin with, but you never know when you will find yourself in the situation, what is worse is if you can't get any help or care and are told since you have no insurance you cannot be assisted , either way you look at it something did have to be done about healthcare one way or the other because the costs were beginning to be completely out of control, the people complaining need to have been more vocal to their representatives, the Republicans had no counter arguments or solutions and someone had to make a decision on ways to avoid the coming train wreck if healthcare was left to run on it's own and possibly fix itself.

I am not so sure that having the government get involved in something so private as healthcare at the levels it has was the best idea, but someone had to make the tough decision to what might not have been the best answer to the problem.

originally posted by: Cabin
The US healthcare system was already weak before Obamacare. Just give it some time. I have yet to see such a major overhaul of a sector working perfectly from the beginning. Expecting it to work currently is just naive.

I doubt any repeal will ever happen. If this proves to be a real failure (at least a few years is needed for it), hopefully US will decide for universal healthcare, which has proven itself in near to every other advanced nation.

The problem is that these "new" problems are a direct result of the law itself.

The same old tired excuse for failure.

They could have had a fail-less system if they'd simply fixed the defects one at a time.

What they've done is the same as somebody tuning up an engine with a broken crankshaft.

The "wishful" thinking agenda is a hoodwink and a scam unfortunately.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well as an update to my ACA quasi fiasco: My children were actually first picked up by ACA and then, immediately placed under an insurance company that they are flat out unable to use as it is very specific in its users. My acceptance came in a few weeks after that. I have since actually been assigned an insurer under a specialized plan for the disabled so all good there but my kids? I haven't received any new assignment for them even though they, according to the site for my state, are supposed to be placed with the same company that I'm under for convenience and etc. Not a peep so looks like I get to spend another hour on hold waiting to talk to a human being again in attempt #2 with the ACA. It's kind of stupid. While I'm really glad that I am finally covered (13 years without insurance sucks in a massive way when you're sick), it's unnerving as a parent of a hemophiliac and another child whose status on that particular family ailment is unknown to have either of them seemingly uninsured at this time. It actually freaks my youngest out so despite her not even being a teen yet, she knows that being uninsured is a bad thing.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

well at least you're part way through all that.

Out of curiosity, did your state have anything for "high risk" people before ACA?

Many States Did but maybe the cost was way too high ?

a reply to: xuenchen

And more demand for doctors is bad how?

You don't think demand for medical care has gone up before?

You are suggesting what? That a system that denies low income people medical care is preferable to an uptick in demand for the medical profession?

???

a reply to: WhiteAlice

So you might be unaware of what having insurance has been like for the past 13 years? Spending time on hold and dealing with bureaucracy is NOT exclusive to government!

Glad to hear you are finally insured.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: xuenchen

And more demand for doctors is bad how?

You don't think demand for medical care has gone up before?

You are suggesting what? That a system that denies low income people medical care is preferable to an uptick in demand for the medical profession?

???

I didn't suggest anything about demand did I ?

but just the same, these affected people in the topic are victims of bureaucratic networking transfers created by the ACA law itself, not increased demand.

Most doctors only take insurance with the highest payola. If they don't take your insurance, they usually recommend that the patient pays cash up front. This is especially evident with specialty doctors. My opinion about Obama Care is its just another way to squeeze more dollars out of people that can't afford an outright tax hike.

The penalty for no insurance after the first year is only about a hundred dollars, after that it can get into the thousands of dollars in penalties. People that don't have insurance can say bye, bye to any future tax refunds.

I don't agree with Obama Care and hope it is repealed. The government might get fond though of that extra revenue and keep it

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, my state did; however, this is how it played out. I first had applied for my state's "crack filler for the uninsurable" back in 2001 in the hopes of obtaining coverage after losing my insurance through lay off and finding myself chronically ill without insurance. The requirement was being denied insurance based on pre-existing condition and the monthly payment for the plan was around $640 for one person (me). In 2008, I attempted to get insured through the state again and was actually denied to be covered by my state for "making too much money" in 2008 as a single mom with 2 children who had gone back to college.

However, in 2009, after my youngest sustained a unknown trauma and overt neglect while on a trip out of state with her paternal side of the family, the high risk pool kicked in to pay for temporary trauma therapy for her coupled with CPS oversight of the therapy to ascertain whether a case should be pursued. She did have insurance but it did not cover mental health. The coverage did not last long enough to the point of disclosure of what had occurred so the case was dropped entirely. They expected a child to basically hand over family members in 6 months time apparently. That was what my state's high risk pool did for a suspected case of child abuse and neglect that had extraordinary signs. I'm just really very glad that that side of the family makes no attempt to fight me for custody or visitation. I still don't know what happened to her.

...

So yes, my state did have a "high risk pool" but it was extremely hard to obtain and when it did kick in for an investigative case, it was so short lived as to be meaningless to the victim. It is part of the reason why my youngest cares deeply about this subject at such a young age. Five years later and she still wants help dealing with what occurred with her and she feels like she can't tell me because she knows I'd go ballistic on the individual. How sad is that? She just brought this subject up two days ago.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cabin
The US healthcare system was already weak before Obamacare. Just give it some time. I have yet to see such a major overhaul of a sector working perfectly from the beginning. Expecting it to work currently is just naive.

This is true, but accepting a fix just because it is a fix is wrong. You need to look at what the fix entails to make sure it actually FIXES things and doesn't break it more, which is what the ACA is doing. You have also acknowledged that the ACA is flawed with your claim that the US will opt for universal health care (more on that in a minute).

Not to mention the fact that the reason it was "broke" to start with is because they deliberately "broke" it in order to make a plausible excuse for their "fix".

You know it's true. They do it all the time. How could they possibly convince anyone the individual mandate was necessary without doing everything under their power to convince people everything else was a lost cause?

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually, I dealt with that when I had insurance. It got to the point where my doctors and I had an "understanding" that there were things that they wanted to do but could not do because of bureaucracy. Kind of like the time that my legs nearly atrophied between monthly check ups. Doctor wanted to do an expensive test and it was denied so we never found out the cause. Bureaucracy and the era of capitalization of medical costs is also why I went through a 58 hour with in-hospital labor where my eldest spent the last 14 hours in fetal distress only to receive an emergency c-section due to, as the hospital put it "the worst labor in their history". To be quite frank, bureaucracy is why my both my arms bear the scars of medical testing via bleeding times and blood tests because really that's all my doctors were often allowed to do. I used to joke that he company was run by vampires with a taste for my blood.

I'm very, very familiar with medical bureaucracy. It was the story of my life in the years up until I lost my insurance entirely. I was formerly a "high priority" patient in the last year of my being insured in part due to the anomalies and in part due to the fact that I had levied two complaints (1 for the labor and the 2nd for their nearly killing my eldest in a gross misdiagnosis of "flu" when he was going into anaphylactic shock) against my insurer with the Board of Medical Examiners. I've always held that health insurance companies are for "healthy people" because they don't want to insure those who actually cost money.