pirana 0 #26 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuote I pay around $700 on a salary of $53000 medicare levy per year (that is deducted from my tax return) Is the system run on that 700/mo, or is it also funded by income taxes? Please learn the purpose of paragraphs. Your lengthy posting was mostly wasted time because it's an ordeal to read. Don't know the details beyond what was provided; but I doubt very much that the system is funded solely by that rate of contribution." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #27 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteHealthcare in Sweden sucks bad. People die while waiting for care and that's no joke. People die waiting for healthcare in this country, too. Many of them because they can't afford it. You're pointing out a small portion of the population, most of those elderly, who have what would be incurable diseases even 50 years ago, as a justification for not paying for any healthcare for anyone. Even people in countries with socialized medicine frequently have the option of paying for better healthcare, if they have a terminal illness, and if they can afford it. People in this country have to pay for all healthcare for colds, broken bones, and terminal illnesses. Most of us have been to the doctor several times in our lives, have paid tens of thousands (or hundreds of thouands if you're older and have a family) in health insurance premiums, and have had to spend a fortune on medication because of our "capitalistic medicine". It makes more sense to treat the majority of the population for curable illnesses (for free), than to force everyone to pay inordinate amounts of money (many of them will opt for not getting healthcare) to justify a small percentage of people that might survive a difficult surgery. BTW - in Sweden, the "sucky" healthcare lends itself to their citizens living three years longer (on average) than in the US, half the infant mortality of the US, 50% more doctors per person than the US and 10% more nurses, all at a cost of 60% per capita of what the US pays. LMAO Yeah, health care is CHEAP in Sweden too. And they have more doctors and nurses. I wonder why my own mother had to wait nine fucking months to get an x-ray of her wrist after her doctor suspected she had carpal tunnel syndrome??? Explain that please. And it's not cheaper in Sweden. Try paying 35% income tax as well as a 25% sales tax (including on your food) and then come talk to me about cheap. Reading shit on Wikipedia is one thing, living it is another. And by the way, it's not their excellent health care that lends itself to Swedes outliving Americans by three years, it's their Diet. Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #28 November 18, 2008 QuoteBTW - in Sweden, the "sucky" healthcare lends itself to their citizens living three years longer (on average) than in the US I'm thinking they don't have as many guns there. I doubt healthcare alone is the reasoning behind this statistic. Quotehalf the infant mortality of the US Again I think it has more to do with who is having babies than the healthcare system. Quote50% more doctors and 10% more nurses per person than the US/repy] No idea why for this one Quote all at a cost of 60% per capita of what the US pays. This one is funny. Take a look at tax rates for Sweden vs. the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svgPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #29 November 18, 2008 QuoteReading shit on Wikipedia is one thing, living it is another. You have me there, I've never lived in Sweden - or was it just your mother that lived there? OTOH, one person's experience in one thing, but deciding what the entire population should have might be better suited to statistics. BTW - cost per capita doesn't factor in how the money was generated - just what it costs, so regardless of where they got the money, it's still cheaper.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #30 November 18, 2008 QuoteThis one is funny. Take a look at tax rates for Sweden vs. the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/...Taxes_By_Country.svg I'm not getting your point - cost per capita doesn't mean they got the money from somewhere else (like taxes, vs. personal income). It is the cost of a year's worth of healthcare cost for each person. How does taxation fit into that statistic?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #31 November 18, 2008 QuoteACTUALLY I WOULD RATHER HAVE A BEAURCRAT (WHOSE SALARY DOES NOT DEPEND ON KNOCKING PEOPLE BACK) MAKING A DECISION THAN A PURELY FOR PROFIT COMPANY WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PAY AS LESS AS POSSIBLE OR NONE AT ALL TO MAXAMISE PROFIT FOR SHAREHOLDERS . in private health jargin a medical loss In Michael Moore sicko dvd they have doctors who work for the companies whose job it is to decline medical treatment. The more they decline the more money the doctor earns A good reason for health care providers and health care financing to be in the realm of not-for-profit. Some states have that as a regulatory mandate. Health care decisions are far more likely to focus on patient outcomes when the decision makers do not have to answer to stockholders (much less hold stock themselves). I'm sure there are a few bad apples out there, but if Michael Moore's claim is that people that process claims are in general paid more if they deny more - - he's full of shit. It's like assuming the few fraudulent medical practices out there represent the norm. There is some abuse, and there are processes in place to catch it and punish it. Does it continue? Yes. Is it rampant? No. But just to be clear; the company for whom I do the bulk of my work handles over 2 million claims per month, has a little over 100 claims processors (80% of claims are never touched by humans), and nobody has any incentive whatsoever to pay less than or more than the contracted benefit. The audits that are performed are to ensure payments exactly reflect the benefits as stated in the contract - not a penny more or a penny less. There are some incentives in place but they are all geared towards accuracy as measured against benefit purchased - not dollars paid out. There also is no payout if there is an operating loss (running administratively in the red), not to be confused with claims loss due to utilization trend or underwriting loss." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #32 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteReading shit on Wikipedia is one thing, living it is another. You have me there, I've never lived in Sweden - or was it just your mother that lived there? OTOH, one person's experience in one thing, but deciding what the entire population should have might be better suited to statistics. BTW - cost per capita doesn't factor in how the money was generated - just what it costs, so regardless of where they got the money, it's still cheaper. Well I lived there for about 12 years and my mother still lives there. I don't care what Wikipedia says, nothing in Sweden is cheap. Sure, you may think health care is "free" because it only costs you maybe a $120 copay when go to the hospital but, when you're paying say, $125 for a pair of Levis and $80 for a bottle of Jack, and $10 or $12 for a loaf of bread, nothing, and I mean nothing, is cheap. Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 November 18, 2008 QuotePeople die waiting for healthcare in this country, too. Many of them because they can't afford it. You're pointing out a small portion of the population, most of those elderly, who have what would be incurable diseases even 50 years ago, as a justification for not paying for any healthcare for anyone. As are you - unless you've actually never heard of Medicare / Medicaid? QuoteBTW - in Sweden, the "sucky" healthcare lends itself to their citizens living three years longer (on average) than in the US, half the infant mortality of the US, 50% more doctors per person than the US and 10% more nurses, all at a cost of 60% per capita of what the US pays. Better look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #34 November 18, 2008 QuoteAgain I think it has more to do with who is having babies than the healthcare system. I don't get this point at all. Are you saying the wrong people are having babies in the US? Is that the reason twice as many babies die in this country than Sweden?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #35 November 18, 2008 QuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #36 November 18, 2008 QuoteSure. I GUESS it is a form of socialism. The difference is that I CHOOSE to participate. Even better I can shop for what I'd good for me. And my indurance I'd for catastropic loss, pretty much. It IS a form of socialism, which is neither good or bad, it is just a way to manage money and risk in this situation. I have the feeling that most people in the U.S despise socialism not because it has nothing good to offer but because is not the american capitalism. QuoteSo I pay some out of pocket for aspirin. Hey. I pay out of pocket for gas for my car. Gas aint free. nor do I buy insuarnce for it. Thus, I have incentive to conserve it. Fair enough, but i think we are debating the best cost effective medical insurance. Of course if you have the money and don´t mind to waste it, you don´t need either. Just pay the doctor whenever you fall sick. QuoteDifferent strokes for sifferent folks. You like it. Cool. I like this. Just as cool. Exactly, as a matter of fact, i see some of your points as a i DO have private medical insurance as well as the government one. And having both i assure you that both of them have good and bad things. If i had to get rid of one, depending how much money i make i would choose one or the other, since the private cost a fixed amount and the public a fixed percentage of your income. For my country, however, i want public healthcare. I don´t want people without money for private insurance falling sicks and stop working and contibuting with their taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #37 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteThis one is funny. Take a look at tax rates for Sweden vs. the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/...Taxes_By_Country.svg I'm not getting your point - cost per capita doesn't mean they got the money from somewhere else (like taxes, vs. personal income). It is the cost of a year's worth of healthcare cost for each person. How does taxation fit into that statistic? Depends on your intrepretation. What do you think cost per capita is? Is it how much an individual spends on healthcare? Is it a total of all costs? Does it factor in taxes? Not enough info there for me to draw a solid conclusion with the exception being the personal tax rate is nearly double that of the US. Thanks, but no thanks. A quick google shows Sweden's system is in trouble.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zee 0 #38 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference? I'm not sure of that fact either but, I can tell you from first hand experience, their health care system is a total disaster. The simple fact is that the government makes an overcomplicated mess of everything it lays it's hands on. That's not just our government, it's every government. Just think of going to the DMV.....that's how they'll run our new "Universal Healthcare System" too...... Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #39 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe whole idea that the insurance companies just deny deny deny claims all day long is bogus. You're grossly oversimplifying a highly complex problem. Well, the insurance companies have computers that deny deny deny claims all day long. So the insurance people don't have to work as hard denying claims. Typically, a small office practice with two or three doctors have at least one person on staff full time to code the insurance claims. They are extensive, and if one little code on page 3 is not right, then insurance company will send it back to you, then you have to repeat the entire process, and between all the mailings, you've lost a week in the process. QuoteIt is estimated approximately 90% of the claims submitted to health insurance companies are rejected for some reason. Source: http://www.talkaboutcuringautism.org/health-insurance/health_ins_reimbursement_tips.htm So yes, insurance companies spend a great deal of time and money rejecting claims. That is absolute bullshit! 90%? Absolute crap! Insurance companies have computers that pay pay pay far more claims than they deny. Don't even know where to start on the gross exxageration about small medical practices. For starters, there are a relatively very few around. Secondly, tell me the name of the 2 or 3 doc clinic that has a person submitting claims full-time. If someone told you this, it is an outright lie or they are the slowest worker bee on the planet. With today's systems it takes seconds to submit a claim, and almost all are submitted electronically. The patient info is all on file, and it takes only seconds to enter codes for procedure, diagnosis, place of service, etc. Get a code wrong, and damn straight it will come back at them. You should see some of the bullshit that gets submitted. And if they are using mail to submit claims, they are part of the problem in admnin costs. Extremely archaic. Initial submission and subsequent adjustments (roughly 5% of claims get adjusted - and that includes all the stupid errors like forgetting the patient name, ID, DOB, procedure, etc) can all be handled electronically. Your total lack of knowledge is showing badly. Even if an electronic claim has to be printed, scanned, or whatever and becomes a piece of paper - it is 1 page long. So the page 3 comment is totally bogus. Get to know the topic before you blast away from the hip with outrageous bullshit claims." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #40 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference? Ever hear of google? You talk a lot of smack about people not having info, when it's obvious you haven't done much research. Excerpt from a Health/Human Services study: QuoteDue in part to medical research, public health and social services supported by HHS, infant mortality has declined considerably during the past three decades. Overall, the nation's infant mortality rate has fallen from 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 6.9 deaths in 2003 (preliminary data). The 2002 rate of 7.0 deaths, based on complete data, was higher than the 2001 rate (6.8), but has fallen 8 percent since 1995 and 24 percent since 1990. In 2002, the leading causes of infant mortality were congenital anomalies, disorders related to immaturity (short gestation and unspecified low birthweight), SIDS, and maternal complications. Snippet from a US News and World Report piece about infant mortality: QuoteFirst, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #41 November 18, 2008 Bottom line for me is choice. I hate the government making decisions for me. Let's relate it to jumping. Say the government controlled skydiving for the last 40 years. We'd all be jumping PC's and belly warts today, if we were "allowed" to do it at all. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #42 November 18, 2008 The problem with the American debate over universal health insurance is that those Americans opposed to it presume that it necessarily MUST be exactly like the Euro-style system, warts and all; and then there's also the psychological hurdle of jingoistic, ideological sloganeering: it's given the label "socialism", and that's a dirty word in the US. So there's simply impasse. But rather than tossing the baby out with the bath-water (gasp! - a cliche'!), why not view the Euro-style model as the "beta version" - subject not to disposal, but improvement - and craft a hybrid system that addresses Americans' needs for a safety net, but also addresses their concerns that the US's current health care infrastructure would degrade. Decades ago, when devices like the minimum wage, Social Security retirement, Social Security disability, Medicare and unemployment comp were first introduced, they were fought against tooth-and-nail by fiscal conservatives, as well as derided bitterly as "socialism" or "communism" by ideological conservatives. And yet now, many decades later, they're simply taken for granted as accepted parts of our social fabric. So here's a modest proposal: let's do this in small increments. For starters, how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs, they get limited government-provided health insurance for as long as they qualify for unemployment comp income. That way, there's still a certain safety net in place, but people still will ultimately have the incentive to get themselves re-employed in order to get (or afford) private health insurance once their unemployment comp runs out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #43 November 18, 2008 Quotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #44 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRAMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gregpso 1 #45 November 18, 2008 THE CURRENCY COLLAPSED BECAUSE ALL THE US DOLLARS IN AUST WERE CALLED BACK TO THE USA Our economy is going to suffer a bit but nothing like yoursI tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #46 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. No. Medicaid is a means-tested program designed principally for low-income, low-resources people. I'm proposing something far more universal, much like unemployment comp. In most states, if a person who makes, say, $80K a year gets laid off, all that's required for him to qualify for unemployment comp is for him to have been employed for a certain period of time, and he gets the comp. There's no look into his assets or other household members' income. I'm proposing a system much like that. It's also not the same as COBRA. With COBRA you have to pay the premiums to continue your former employer's health insurance while you're unemployed. Not the case in my plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #47 November 18, 2008 Quote Quote Quote how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRA COBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free"Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #48 November 18, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRA COBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free" No, not "free" but paid-into during employment, just like we all pay into our unemployment comp funds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #49 November 18, 2008 QuoteEver hear of google? You talk a lot of smack about people not having info, when it's obvious you haven't done much research. Excerpt from a Health/Human Services study: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't see anything about Sweden in here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snippet from a US News and World Report piece about infant mortality: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, nothing here about Sweden either. Unless, you want to make that assertion that "all those Eurpoeans countries are the same". I'm really not trying to make this personal, and I'm not "talking smack" about you, I just doubt your sources of information. You made the statement that Sweden only judges infant mortality if the infant has been alive for three months. I doubted that information. In the first quote, I don't see anything about how Sweden judges a baby to be only alive after it's been alive for three months, and in the second quote, I don't see any thing that says that either. As for how the different nations deciding what to call infant mortality - that's akin to a schoolkid getting a failing grade on exam, then complaining that every other kid in the class cheated. The US scores consistanly one of the worst first-world countries in the world for infant mortality. It's not because every other country cheats on their numbers, and it's not because the wrong people are having babies.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #50 November 18, 2008 QuoteCOBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free" Kinda. I used COBRA once. I quit a job on Friday, and started a new job on Monday. The health insurance for the new job didn't take effect for 30 days. On the 20th day, I had an appendectomy. $12,000. Now if I had not had appendicitis, and no other health claims, I would have paid nothing - just waited until the new insurance took effect. But since I had a claim, I was able to pay retro-actively for one month of my old insurance premium ($150), and get the appendectomy paid for. So COBRA is free for the majority of people that don't use it. In my experience, it is a good program that works.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
riddler 0 #29 November 18, 2008 QuoteReading shit on Wikipedia is one thing, living it is another. You have me there, I've never lived in Sweden - or was it just your mother that lived there? OTOH, one person's experience in one thing, but deciding what the entire population should have might be better suited to statistics. BTW - cost per capita doesn't factor in how the money was generated - just what it costs, so regardless of where they got the money, it's still cheaper.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #30 November 18, 2008 QuoteThis one is funny. Take a look at tax rates for Sweden vs. the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/...Taxes_By_Country.svg I'm not getting your point - cost per capita doesn't mean they got the money from somewhere else (like taxes, vs. personal income). It is the cost of a year's worth of healthcare cost for each person. How does taxation fit into that statistic?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #31 November 18, 2008 QuoteACTUALLY I WOULD RATHER HAVE A BEAURCRAT (WHOSE SALARY DOES NOT DEPEND ON KNOCKING PEOPLE BACK) MAKING A DECISION THAN A PURELY FOR PROFIT COMPANY WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PAY AS LESS AS POSSIBLE OR NONE AT ALL TO MAXAMISE PROFIT FOR SHAREHOLDERS . in private health jargin a medical loss In Michael Moore sicko dvd they have doctors who work for the companies whose job it is to decline medical treatment. The more they decline the more money the doctor earns A good reason for health care providers and health care financing to be in the realm of not-for-profit. Some states have that as a regulatory mandate. Health care decisions are far more likely to focus on patient outcomes when the decision makers do not have to answer to stockholders (much less hold stock themselves). I'm sure there are a few bad apples out there, but if Michael Moore's claim is that people that process claims are in general paid more if they deny more - - he's full of shit. It's like assuming the few fraudulent medical practices out there represent the norm. There is some abuse, and there are processes in place to catch it and punish it. Does it continue? Yes. Is it rampant? No. But just to be clear; the company for whom I do the bulk of my work handles over 2 million claims per month, has a little over 100 claims processors (80% of claims are never touched by humans), and nobody has any incentive whatsoever to pay less than or more than the contracted benefit. The audits that are performed are to ensure payments exactly reflect the benefits as stated in the contract - not a penny more or a penny less. There are some incentives in place but they are all geared towards accuracy as measured against benefit purchased - not dollars paid out. There also is no payout if there is an operating loss (running administratively in the red), not to be confused with claims loss due to utilization trend or underwriting loss." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #32 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteReading shit on Wikipedia is one thing, living it is another. You have me there, I've never lived in Sweden - or was it just your mother that lived there? OTOH, one person's experience in one thing, but deciding what the entire population should have might be better suited to statistics. BTW - cost per capita doesn't factor in how the money was generated - just what it costs, so regardless of where they got the money, it's still cheaper. Well I lived there for about 12 years and my mother still lives there. I don't care what Wikipedia says, nothing in Sweden is cheap. Sure, you may think health care is "free" because it only costs you maybe a $120 copay when go to the hospital but, when you're paying say, $125 for a pair of Levis and $80 for a bottle of Jack, and $10 or $12 for a loaf of bread, nothing, and I mean nothing, is cheap. Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 November 18, 2008 QuotePeople die waiting for healthcare in this country, too. Many of them because they can't afford it. You're pointing out a small portion of the population, most of those elderly, who have what would be incurable diseases even 50 years ago, as a justification for not paying for any healthcare for anyone. As are you - unless you've actually never heard of Medicare / Medicaid? QuoteBTW - in Sweden, the "sucky" healthcare lends itself to their citizens living three years longer (on average) than in the US, half the infant mortality of the US, 50% more doctors per person than the US and 10% more nurses, all at a cost of 60% per capita of what the US pays. Better look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #34 November 18, 2008 QuoteAgain I think it has more to do with who is having babies than the healthcare system. I don't get this point at all. Are you saying the wrong people are having babies in the US? Is that the reason twice as many babies die in this country than Sweden?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #35 November 18, 2008 QuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #36 November 18, 2008 QuoteSure. I GUESS it is a form of socialism. The difference is that I CHOOSE to participate. Even better I can shop for what I'd good for me. And my indurance I'd for catastropic loss, pretty much. It IS a form of socialism, which is neither good or bad, it is just a way to manage money and risk in this situation. I have the feeling that most people in the U.S despise socialism not because it has nothing good to offer but because is not the american capitalism. QuoteSo I pay some out of pocket for aspirin. Hey. I pay out of pocket for gas for my car. Gas aint free. nor do I buy insuarnce for it. Thus, I have incentive to conserve it. Fair enough, but i think we are debating the best cost effective medical insurance. Of course if you have the money and don´t mind to waste it, you don´t need either. Just pay the doctor whenever you fall sick. QuoteDifferent strokes for sifferent folks. You like it. Cool. I like this. Just as cool. Exactly, as a matter of fact, i see some of your points as a i DO have private medical insurance as well as the government one. And having both i assure you that both of them have good and bad things. If i had to get rid of one, depending how much money i make i would choose one or the other, since the private cost a fixed amount and the public a fixed percentage of your income. For my country, however, i want public healthcare. I don´t want people without money for private insurance falling sicks and stop working and contibuting with their taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #37 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteThis one is funny. Take a look at tax rates for Sweden vs. the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/...Taxes_By_Country.svg I'm not getting your point - cost per capita doesn't mean they got the money from somewhere else (like taxes, vs. personal income). It is the cost of a year's worth of healthcare cost for each person. How does taxation fit into that statistic? Depends on your intrepretation. What do you think cost per capita is? Is it how much an individual spends on healthcare? Is it a total of all costs? Does it factor in taxes? Not enough info there for me to draw a solid conclusion with the exception being the personal tax rate is nearly double that of the US. Thanks, but no thanks. A quick google shows Sweden's system is in trouble.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zee 0 #38 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference? I'm not sure of that fact either but, I can tell you from first hand experience, their health care system is a total disaster. The simple fact is that the government makes an overcomplicated mess of everything it lays it's hands on. That's not just our government, it's every government. Just think of going to the DMV.....that's how they'll run our new "Universal Healthcare System" too...... Action©Sports Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #39 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe whole idea that the insurance companies just deny deny deny claims all day long is bogus. You're grossly oversimplifying a highly complex problem. Well, the insurance companies have computers that deny deny deny claims all day long. So the insurance people don't have to work as hard denying claims. Typically, a small office practice with two or three doctors have at least one person on staff full time to code the insurance claims. They are extensive, and if one little code on page 3 is not right, then insurance company will send it back to you, then you have to repeat the entire process, and between all the mailings, you've lost a week in the process. QuoteIt is estimated approximately 90% of the claims submitted to health insurance companies are rejected for some reason. Source: http://www.talkaboutcuringautism.org/health-insurance/health_ins_reimbursement_tips.htm So yes, insurance companies spend a great deal of time and money rejecting claims. That is absolute bullshit! 90%? Absolute crap! Insurance companies have computers that pay pay pay far more claims than they deny. Don't even know where to start on the gross exxageration about small medical practices. For starters, there are a relatively very few around. Secondly, tell me the name of the 2 or 3 doc clinic that has a person submitting claims full-time. If someone told you this, it is an outright lie or they are the slowest worker bee on the planet. With today's systems it takes seconds to submit a claim, and almost all are submitted electronically. The patient info is all on file, and it takes only seconds to enter codes for procedure, diagnosis, place of service, etc. Get a code wrong, and damn straight it will come back at them. You should see some of the bullshit that gets submitted. And if they are using mail to submit claims, they are part of the problem in admnin costs. Extremely archaic. Initial submission and subsequent adjustments (roughly 5% of claims get adjusted - and that includes all the stupid errors like forgetting the patient name, ID, DOB, procedure, etc) can all be handled electronically. Your total lack of knowledge is showing badly. Even if an electronic claim has to be printed, scanned, or whatever and becomes a piece of paper - it is 1 page long. So the page 3 comment is totally bogus. Get to know the topic before you blast away from the hip with outrageous bullshit claims." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteBetter look at how Sweden calculates their infant mortality - iirc, the baby has to live longer than 3 months before it counts. Sounds like a made-up fact to me - have a reference? Ever hear of google? You talk a lot of smack about people not having info, when it's obvious you haven't done much research. Excerpt from a Health/Human Services study: QuoteDue in part to medical research, public health and social services supported by HHS, infant mortality has declined considerably during the past three decades. Overall, the nation's infant mortality rate has fallen from 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 6.9 deaths in 2003 (preliminary data). The 2002 rate of 7.0 deaths, based on complete data, was higher than the 2001 rate (6.8), but has fallen 8 percent since 1995 and 24 percent since 1990. In 2002, the leading causes of infant mortality were congenital anomalies, disorders related to immaturity (short gestation and unspecified low birthweight), SIDS, and maternal complications. Snippet from a US News and World Report piece about infant mortality: QuoteFirst, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #41 November 18, 2008 Bottom line for me is choice. I hate the government making decisions for me. Let's relate it to jumping. Say the government controlled skydiving for the last 40 years. We'd all be jumping PC's and belly warts today, if we were "allowed" to do it at all. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #42 November 18, 2008 The problem with the American debate over universal health insurance is that those Americans opposed to it presume that it necessarily MUST be exactly like the Euro-style system, warts and all; and then there's also the psychological hurdle of jingoistic, ideological sloganeering: it's given the label "socialism", and that's a dirty word in the US. So there's simply impasse. But rather than tossing the baby out with the bath-water (gasp! - a cliche'!), why not view the Euro-style model as the "beta version" - subject not to disposal, but improvement - and craft a hybrid system that addresses Americans' needs for a safety net, but also addresses their concerns that the US's current health care infrastructure would degrade. Decades ago, when devices like the minimum wage, Social Security retirement, Social Security disability, Medicare and unemployment comp were first introduced, they were fought against tooth-and-nail by fiscal conservatives, as well as derided bitterly as "socialism" or "communism" by ideological conservatives. And yet now, many decades later, they're simply taken for granted as accepted parts of our social fabric. So here's a modest proposal: let's do this in small increments. For starters, how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs, they get limited government-provided health insurance for as long as they qualify for unemployment comp income. That way, there's still a certain safety net in place, but people still will ultimately have the incentive to get themselves re-employed in order to get (or afford) private health insurance once their unemployment comp runs out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #43 November 18, 2008 Quotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRAMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregpso 1 #45 November 18, 2008 THE CURRENCY COLLAPSED BECAUSE ALL THE US DOLLARS IN AUST WERE CALLED BACK TO THE USA Our economy is going to suffer a bit but nothing like yoursI tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #46 November 18, 2008 QuoteQuotehow about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. No. Medicaid is a means-tested program designed principally for low-income, low-resources people. I'm proposing something far more universal, much like unemployment comp. In most states, if a person who makes, say, $80K a year gets laid off, all that's required for him to qualify for unemployment comp is for him to have been employed for a certain period of time, and he gets the comp. There's no look into his assets or other household members' income. I'm proposing a system much like that. It's also not the same as COBRA. With COBRA you have to pay the premiums to continue your former employer's health insurance while you're unemployed. Not the case in my plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #47 November 18, 2008 Quote Quote Quote how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRA COBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free"Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 November 18, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote how about a program that employs an unemployment comp-style safety net: if people who currently get their health insurance through their jobs lose their jobs We already have that...it's called Medicaid. COBRA COBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free" No, not "free" but paid-into during employment, just like we all pay into our unemployment comp funds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #49 November 18, 2008 QuoteEver hear of google? You talk a lot of smack about people not having info, when it's obvious you haven't done much research. Excerpt from a Health/Human Services study: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't see anything about Sweden in here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snippet from a US News and World Report piece about infant mortality: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, nothing here about Sweden either. Unless, you want to make that assertion that "all those Eurpoeans countries are the same". I'm really not trying to make this personal, and I'm not "talking smack" about you, I just doubt your sources of information. You made the statement that Sweden only judges infant mortality if the infant has been alive for three months. I doubted that information. In the first quote, I don't see anything about how Sweden judges a baby to be only alive after it's been alive for three months, and in the second quote, I don't see any thing that says that either. As for how the different nations deciding what to call infant mortality - that's akin to a schoolkid getting a failing grade on exam, then complaining that every other kid in the class cheated. The US scores consistanly one of the worst first-world countries in the world for infant mortality. It's not because every other country cheats on their numbers, and it's not because the wrong people are having babies.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #50 November 18, 2008 QuoteCOBRA requires the recipient to continue paying the full premium. We're searching for something that's "free" Kinda. I used COBRA once. I quit a job on Friday, and started a new job on Monday. The health insurance for the new job didn't take effect for 30 days. On the 20th day, I had an appendectomy. $12,000. Now if I had not had appendicitis, and no other health claims, I would have paid nothing - just waited until the new insurance took effect. But since I had a claim, I was able to pay retro-actively for one month of my old insurance premium ($150), and get the appendectomy paid for. So COBRA is free for the majority of people that don't use it. In my experience, it is a good program that works.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
