2.5 million more people, aged 19 to 25, have health insurance

[Low12s]

and I am paying for it.

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by Low12s

and I am paying for it.

do you have kids in that age bracket?

[polarbear]

Originally Posted by mrvette

300/MONTH???? he better be making over 5 grand a month or he going BK over that shit....

that is stupid high rates....

Are you serious? Medical, no deductable, $3Million cap (cancer only). Vision, no deductable, $2,000 cap per year for glasses. Dental, no deductable $3000 cap/yr. Prescription covered 80%, $10 co-pay per visit. Go price that coverage and get back to me. (This is School District coverage- doubt you can even buy a policy like that). After his third year his share will drop to about $100/mo.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Did you bother to read the article? Their parents are now allowed to PAY for their kids insurance. Who the hell is getting something for free here? Most of these people didn't have insurance before. Now they do. If anything this means tax payers WILL BE PAYING LESS FOR THE UNINSURED than they did before.

I swear, so many of you are so eager to shit on Obama you can't see ANYTHING good in any of his efforts.

The single specific reason I voted for him is because I want socialized medicine. I said that many times before he was elected. In that regard he still hasn't lived up to my expectations. I won't be happy until we go to single payer and eliminate all the unnecessary money skimming insurance companies that artificially keep health care cost exorbitant and prevent people with pre existing conditions from getting insurance.

Yes, we are now allowed to pay for our kids' health insurance until they're 27. Whoopee-shit. Why the hell aren't they on their own by that age? Anyway, to answer yoyr question, how is our paying for 2 more year's insurance for our kids resulting in our paying less for the uninsured?

You want socialized medicine? Then move to a Country that already has it and see how you like it. You need a hip replacement at age 80? Forget it. You need a heart transplant at age 70? Nope.

Where are your facts about insurance company profits? They're less than 2% per year, which in all honesty is good in this economy, but certainly not exorbitant. The only thing that keeps health care costs high...is the high costs of medical care. Costs of medical care have risen much faster than any other segment of our economy, like 20-40% more per year.

Pre-existing conditions should not disqualify someone from lower rates? So, should a horrible driving record--DWIs, numerous at-fault accidents--not dictate higher car insurance premiums? It's the same thing.

[jaxgator]

Originally Posted by G8rDMD

Mine decreased a tad too...with new higher deductibles and copays Ain't it great?!

Exactly! Premiums decreased with higher deductibles. BS! My insurance used to be that I paid $35 co-pay for each doctor's visit. Now, I have a $4,000 deductible, so I pay 4-****ing-K and until I reach that limit, I pay full price for my doctor's office visits. And because I am on a standard regimen of med's he requires that I have a quarterly visit. F'king BS!

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I swear, so many of you are so eager to shit on Obama you can't see ANYTHING good in any of his efforts.

The single specific reason I voted for him is because I want socialized medicine.

You voted for him because he has the same Commie views that you have.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Vast majority of Canadians are happy with their system.

Personally I prefer the system the French have.

Total BS! Where do you come up with this BS Phil? Have you read where the waits for shit in the medical community have cost lives in the Canadian medical system? Apparently not.

Obamacare is nothing but socialized medicine that is going to bankrupt the American economy and also KILL people, ****in' Commie CRAP!!!!

[polarbear]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Vast majority of Canadians are happy with their system.

Personally I prefer the system the French have.

Which, of course, explains why so many wealthy Canukistanis make their way to Seattle, Portland, and Cali for medical procedures.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by polarbear

Which, of course, explains why so many wealthy Canukistanis make their way to Seattle, Portland, and Cali for medical procedures.

Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since World War II. In the 1960s, the United States chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services.

As a policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.

Our countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of General Motors. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, health care costs and vital statistics.

The U.S. and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?

On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.

On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured, and health care bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.

Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

On costs, Canada spends 10 percent of its economy on health care; the U.S. spends 16 percent. The extra 6 percent of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80 percent to 90 percent lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.

Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.

Because most of the difference in spending is for nonpatient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung-transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20 percent lower.

Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead.

The Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including appointments with family doctors and specialists, and selected surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease.

However, according to the New York-based Commonwealth Fund, both the American and the Canadian systems fare badly in these areas. In fact, an April U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted that U.S. emergency room wait times have increased, and patients who should be seen immediately are now waiting an average of 28 minutes. The GAO also has raised concerns about two- to four-month waiting times for mammograms.

On closer examination, most of these problems have little to do with public insurance or even overall resources. Despite the delays, the GAO said there is enough mammogram capacity.

These problems are largely caused by our shared politico-cultural barriers to quality of care. In 19th-century North America, doctors waged a campaign against quacks and snake-oil salesmen and attained a legislative monopoly on medical practice. In return, they promised to set and enforce standards of practice. By and large, it didn't happen. And perverse incentives like fee-for-service make things even worse.

Using techniques like those championed by the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, providers can eliminate most delays. In Hamilton, Ontario, 17 psychiatrists have linked up with 100 family doctors and 80 social workers to offer some of the world's best access to mental health services. And in Toronto, simple process improvements mean you can now get your hip assessed in one week and get a new one, if you need it, within a month.

Lesson No. 5: Canadian health care delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality.

U.S. health policy would be miles ahead if policymakers could learn these lessons. But they seem less interested in Canada's, or any other nation's, experience than ever. Why?

American democracy runs on money. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have the fuel. Analysts see hundreds of billions of premiums wasted on overhead that could fund care for the uninsured. But industry executives and shareholders see bonuses and dividends.

Compounding the confusion is traditional American ignorance of what happens north of the border, which makes it easy to mislead people. Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric does the same. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed that our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors.

Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience.

Copyright: 2009, Los Angeles Times

Again, I prefer the French system.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by HeatherO

what system do the French have?

White flag. As soon as they feel a bit ill they give up.

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

White flag. As soon as they feel a bit ill they give up.

while I chuckled at that, I still don't know what the French system is like...I guess I will go google since nobody will answer my question

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Health care in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those charts given there are almost meaningless to ME, because of the exchange rates at the time, and the earning power/LACK of in the other countries....so I think you can get my drift....ie, hours actually worked for any given level of health care in any given country....

trying to translate to pure bux is kind of tuff to do.....

maybe as a % of income? so to draw the comparisons more distinctly??

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I won't be happy until we go to single payer and eliminate all the unnecessary money skimming insurance companies...

That'll put a few people out of work.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

That'll put a few people out of work.

Joe's fine with the money skimming federal government. But private companies making a profit is a bad thing.

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Joe's fine with the money skimming federal government. But private companies making a profit is a bad thing.

i work for an insurance company. a huge one.

you would be amazed at all of the fraudulent bills that are received, It's a wonder insurance companies can make a profit at all.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by HeatherO

i work for an insurance company. a huge one.

you would be amazed at all of the fraudulent bills that are received, It's a wonder insurance companies can make a profit at all.

Tell me about it, I had a attack of too much spice/chilli/tabasco/whatever for lunch about 2 years go....

so shit bright red and off to the hospital, they had a diagnosis of diavertriculitis, and so sent me home after the usual finger test...

bill?? try....FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED some odd bux....

total time in the hospital?? 4 hours....

now I would HOPE the .gov was smart enough to NOT pay that...

but maybe a more typical total of 400 bux, which is about all it's worth...

The only saving grace was the Doc, she was pretty cute, really, but had a Pelosi face...too much with the botox crap....

[Broken Wind]

The company I work for has it's manuf operations in Montreal and I spend a good deal of time there. I've asked my Canadian colleagues about their experiences with their system and I really haven't heard many complaints. They admit they pay more taxes to support the system, but they are conditioned to that so to them, it's not a huge issue now. It's different for us because of the huge paradigm shift involved. This administration is great at talking big ideas, but they suck ass at managing expectations and change. obama appears to prefer the "ram it down their throats and go on to the next agenda item" theory . His leadership just sucks. Really bad.

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

That'll put a few people out of work.

no kidding!!! the company I work for does not really deal with traditional medical insurance though...we deal with life, accident, dental, catastrophic, to name a few...

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Are insurance companies angels? Nope.

Are there changes which could/should be made to the current system to make it better? Yes.

Are the insurance companies "evil"? No.

I don't claim insurance companies are angelic...but policies are sold and people buy them and then bitch and complain and think they can change the terms of the policy to suit them...
I've been involved in the insurance industry for a lot of years. I've seen a lot of crazy shit
Insurance companies are heavily mandated and when they make a mistake, they pay heavy, heavy fines to the states they operate in...
I wonder, and worry what effect socialized medicine will have on coverages like disability insurance and life insurance and all of the other coverages that are currently available that are usually separate from the current group medical coverages that we get through our employers..

[Scissors]

I disagree with some aspects of Obamacare--especially the part which requires you to have coverage. However, as long as the insurance company is allowed to have a higher rate to reflect the additional covered person, I don't see how this particular aspect is a problem. That is, allowing parents to keep their children on their policy longer.

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

That's really terrific since they are the demographic least likely to use healthcare in the first place.

Without the types of people who pay in more than they get back, insurance would not work in the first place. Insurance relies on demographics such as this.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by HeatherO

no kidding!!! the company I work for does not really deal with traditional medical insurance though...we deal with life, accident, dental, catastrophic, to name a few...

You're next with Barry in office.

[HeatherO]

Originally Posted by Doug28450

You're next with Barry in office.

I didn't vote for him, and I won't vote for him this time round...but what exactly do you mean by me being next?