Healthcare In The USA

quote:

---

The side that lives out in the countryside.

---

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

So now you know that my use of the statement is not the same as using the President's full name in a conversation.My thoughts were sparked by a specific question in the CO town hall where the President was asked about reimbursements to doctors. Private insurance reimburses at about 80% and Medicare at about 50% according to the questioner. The President said the Public Plan wouldn't be as low as Medicare, but he didn't say it would be at the same level as private insurance. I think there's a formula written in the plan.So knowing that Medicare and Medicaid are refused due to low reimbursements, I see the same problem for any new plan that does the same without there being a change in the way health providers accept insurance.Some doctors won't accept private insurance from insurance companies that are problematic. They make it too difficult for doctors to get paid. They automatically reject every claim, refuse to pay, argue about the services rendered, etc. That would be another issue of insurance reform. Insurance companies need to pay in a timely fashion and not play games. Our insurance company quibbles over wording on the bill. The medical codes are standardized and should be accepted as such. Invariably we are caught in the middle.There needs to be some way that insurance companies can be held accountable for not doing what the are paid to do.

the same can be said for a healthy communityillness keeps people away from work, which can put a strain on the economyIn australia we have both systems in place, a private and a public system.
As a family of 5, we have private health insurance. This gives us access to public or private hospitals without going onto a waiting list. Although there are many different plans avail and ours requires that we pay for the room of a private hospital for the two adults, however the children are covered in a private hospital.People on the public system (medicare) pay for the system themselves through whats called the 'medicare levy'. This is a one off yearly tax approx 1.5% of the persons income. This is paid in addition to their regular income tax. If you are privately insured, you are exempt from paying the levy.Public patients can choose not to use medicare if they are happy to pay the doctor his fees for private services. This might happen if the patient didnt want to go onto a public waiting list. If they do this, the government will pay a part of the cost involved for the patient, but not the whole cost. Or if their condition can wait, they might choose to go onto the waiting list for treatment at a later date.While its true that medicare does cost a lot, and our government is always being lobbied to provide more funds, the system works. It provides a health system for people who otherwise would not be able to afford it. And the public system is not affected by it because its generally the low income earners and pensioners who are on medicare and they cant afford to pay for private insurance anyway.And finally, it cant be costing too much becuase our government is soon to include dental as part of medicare.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

People on the public system (medicare) pay for the system themselves through whats called the 'medicare levy'. This is a one off yearly tax approx 1.5% of the persons income. This is paid in addition to their regular income tax. If you are privately insured, you are exempt from paying the levy.

---

This is great! why can't we have something like that in Britain?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In the United States Medicare Tax is taken out of everyone's pay and matched by the employer (there may be exceptions, but I don't know them). Medicare is for those 65 and older. Medicaid is jointly funded by the states and federal government and is designed for low income families. My mother has never had any trouble with Medicare. She has had trouble with health providers telling her that something is covered by Medicare and afterwards finding out that it isn't and having to pay out of pocket.People can also carry private insurance, as well as Medicare, but Medicare is the primary provider. Medicare can be a secondary provider, but I'm not familiar with how it works.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

For one thing, we already pay for the uninsured. Those peo0ple who go to the emergency room for the stomach aches that were being disparaged before are still paid for. The government has a fund that gets paid to hospitals to cover the expense of un/underinsured people using the emergency room. If we covered those people adequately, we could eliminate that fund, use it to pay for insurance, the poeple could go get check-ups and combat the underlying problems rather than waiting until it's so bad they need to go to the emergency room, thus freeing up the space for real emergencies and spending less per person on the program.I agree that a single-payer program is the best. If we took the money being spent on current insureres and diverted it to a tax, I'd pay exactly the same, but now I could go to any hospital, whether I'm on vacation across the country or not, and everyone could get the checkups and tests they need to maintain health.

im not sure what the UK tax system is like, but we pay tax on everything pretty muchour tax system is so complicated no one knows exactly how much tax we pay.

yeah we are definitely on completely different systems. Over here only people who dont have private insurance have to pay the medicare levy, unless they are on pensions.I've watched the Michael Moore doco 'Sicko'
One disturbing aspect of that doco was the fact that insurance companies wont insure people with pre existing conditions. And yet its the insurance companies who are against a public system...the result being that the corporate companies are in control of health care because they refuse to give insurance to those who need it, and also oppose the government giving them access to services.you'd think that they would by happy for the govt to pay for the people who they refuse to cover

Hey Oni,In Who will be the next world power? Message 115: It seems my ol' assertion is not in danger of being retired anytime soon. As I often scoffed before, the Dems are as bad as Repubs."Democrats -- like the Republicans -- are a party of big business and cannot be anything different."It's Official: Healthcare Reform is Dead
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

Hey Dronester, great article. And this is the point both you and I tried to explain to Rrhain and Straggler in that thread and a few others.Lets bring in our buddy Straggler into this post and re-hash old opinions.Hey Straggler, remember when you wrote this in the "Who will be the next world power thread?" I refer you to the current "big business" control of the health care reform to see exactly how "big business decides key policies from behind the scenes."From Dronesters article:

quote:

---

One disagreement between the competing plans was the highly controversial "public option." This was what the health care corporations hated most, since it was a way to directly take power out of their hands. Again, the White House backed off, "signal[ing] Sunday that it was willing to compromise and would consider a proposal for a nonprofit health cooperative being developed in the Senate." (New York Times, August 16, 2009). The "cooperative" idea is widely considered by health care advocates to be useless.

​

Such sellouts were the inevitable result of intensified health care industry bribery (so-called "lobbying"), which Business Week claims to be "... a record $133 million...in the second quarter of 2009 alone..." (August 6, 2009). The same article -- appropriately named The Health Insurers Have Already Won -- examines the health care lobby's successes and notes that no matter what health care bill emerges from Congress, the "insurance industry will emerge more profitable."

​

The same article also reveals -- unsurprisingly -- that health care corporations were responsible for destroying the public health care option, while "also achieving a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry." This simply means that the taxpayer money that will be used to subsidize any health care plan will go straight towards health care company profits, while providing the same shoddy care they've always provided.

​

Heads they win, tails we lose.

​

The health care industry is so pleased with the deal they've struck with Obama, they're willing to put up $150 million toward an advertising campaign to insure the deal's passage.

---

You also wrote: So, Straggler, I now have a question... do you still disagree?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I bet ya not as much as we do. Difference is we don't get any tax deductions for being privately insured. Your system seems a lot fairer.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Definitely less than I did. I certainly don't have an equally supported position in terms of references. But I have just looked at this thread and will think on it some more before getting back properly.One question - What did other industries want? The insurance industry for example? Are all big business winners in this or are some industries pissed off at this?

I have to say, Peg, I'm astonished that no one seems to use Australian health care as a model to aspire to. It sounds very reasonable, if your description is accurate.I like elements of private insurance and I like elements of socialized medicine.The Aussie system seems to take the positive elements I like about both systems while doing its best to avoid the worst elements.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

The pharm and insurance industry were not working together, from what I've been able to gather. This was headed by Big Pharm. That's a good question. I'll see what I can dig up. Some industries, like say the auto industry that has many workers may have an opinion different from the pharm industries. I'll see what I find.[ABE] Btw, take your time responding. I just noticed the complaint thread, which I actually didn't know there was one, and you seem to be public enemy number one. - When you gets over the bitching from those with thin skin, I'll see you here for some old school fist-to-cuffs... no gloves! - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hey Straggler, Err Straggler, I think you may still be missing my main point: the public's interest/needs came last, AFTER all/some/ANY big business. It does not matter what other industries or politicians want. It does not matter which industries or politicians profit or lose. It only matters that the public's interests/needs are not being served. Thus, the proper question is "What did the people want?" 70% wanted universal heath care.Not gonna happen. Have a read to see how many ways the American public will get screwed:It's Official: Healthcare Reform is Dead
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.Edited by dronester, : clarity, clarity, and clarity