quote:

I pay $69/month total for 2 Rx's that I paid $25 in co-pay's for when I had insurance. My costs have risen $44/month. But, nothing else was paid for those Rx's. $170 was paid for those Rx's when I had insurance, but only $25 out of my pocket. My therapist charges $150, but the insurance reduced it to $90, including a $15 co-pay. I now pay $65 ($50 more), but it's still $25 less than when I had insurance. I have yet to go to a physician for a checkup or anything, so I can't tell you what that cost is ($15 co-pay was all it was before). To add it all up, I pay $134 for 2 medications and a monthly therapy session. That is a grand total of $94 more out of my pocket, and $126 less than when I had insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm not sure it's useful to get into minute detail over the similarities and differences between the US and Australia. At a macro level there are few countries more similar. Of course there will be variations but I doubt if the differences between here and the US would be greater than the differences between Florida and Alaska.

The 3 things I brought up, are not minute details. Part of the problem in the US, is that our lifestyle is such, that consumption is king. We consume to excess and beyond. And, yes, I do absolutely believe that is massively important.

quote:


A news report here a few days ago had a 'typical American family' with an income of $48,000pa paying $13,000pa for healthcare. That would be more than the total tax deduction for all Govt. services for an equivalent family here. We pay 9.1% of GDP for 100% coverage healthcare, the US pays c16% and that leaves 50,000,000 Americans without coverage. The disparity is such that any over charging would seem to be in the US private system.
This is especially apparent in prescription drug costs. Here the Govt acts as "single buyer" for the entire population and negotiates favourable deals with the pharmaceutical companies so that no necessary prescription drugs are unaffordable. See here for details. So almost all prescriptions cost less than $10 to fill at the chemists (even less for those on benefits). Some version of this scheme like this would be easily transferable to US conditions and save US consumers billions. It completely changes the power dynamics between consumers and Big Pharma.

And here is where you are missing the boat. Big Pharma and our elected officials will always be linked until we can sever the $$ ties between them. PPACA doesn't do that. If anything, PPACA strengthened that link.

quote:


Markets work best when the name of the game is profit, when the outcome can be measured in dollars and cents. Healthcare is different - we can't accurately put a $ figure on a person's health. In healthcare the end object is health, not profit and the international experience is that public systems offer far better coverage with far better health outcomes for far fewer $ than private systems.

One of the big problems that we have here is the curative nature of our medical system. If we had a more preventive system, we'd have a lower spend. That's been a big push within the higher education teaching towards emphasizing preventive care to lower costs. The American populace isn't "into" a preventive lifestyle. We are into a consumption lifestyle and putting off the responsible actions (and as much responsibility for the consequences as possible) for later and onto others. Enabling further responsibility shifting is what PPACA does.

And, may I also direct your attention to your Constitution requiring an amendment to give your Federal Government Constitutional authority to institute NHI? I have said well before I ever registered with CM that if an amendment to the Constitution giving the Federal Government uthority over health care was passed, I'd have no basis for my argument against UHC.

With the focus on consumption in the US, I still doubt UHC would have the same fiscal benefits that are realized elsewhere, and I still believe, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Government is the biggest inhibitor of solid Market solutions because of it's corruption to Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Medicine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

everybody dies, no REALLY???? Fuck I never knew that.
Good god. Being unable to afford to go to the right place to get help with what is ailing you simply because you dont have the funds is what the problem is.
Please dont be utterly ridiculous.

quote:

One of the big problems that we have here is the curative nature of our medical system. If we had a more preventive system, we'd have a lower spend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

everybody dies, no REALLY???? Fuck I never knew that.
Good god. Being unable to afford to go to the right place to get help with what is ailing you simply because you dont have the funds is what the problem is.
Please dont be utterly ridiculous.

But Lucy...your original argument, along with several others was..."it isn't going to cost a thing".

That's just silly. Now we know better.

Now everyone knows better.

It's going to cost about 2.5% above 200K (so they say) but in fact, EVERYONE is going to pay another 2% on a Medicare adjustment, EVERYONE is going to pay 0.675% on (some other gawdamn thing that I can't remember) and when it's all said and done....when it's all over....adding everything up....EVERYONE is going to pay another 2.32% on ALL INCOME.

Which is fine by me and as it would appear, fine by most....but...

It ain't free....and it is going to cost.

And that's okay....

And by the way, these numbers were put out by the CBO...these are not new taxes, less savings.

They are NEW additional COSTS on top of what you pay today.

I think that's a small price to pay but....it ain't a net zero or negative...this is a new addition to what you pay now and will INCREASE as time goes on (ever found a new federal program that went down in cost?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

everybody dies, no REALLY???? Fuck I never knew that.
Good god. Being unable to afford to go to the right place to get help with what is ailing you simply because you dont have the funds is what the problem is.
Please dont be utterly ridiculous.

But Lucy...your original argument, along with several others was..."it isn't going to cost a thing".

That's just silly. Now we know better.

Now everyone knows better.

It's going to cost about 2.5% above 200K (so they say) but in fact, EVERYONE is going to pay another 2% on a Medicare adjustment, EVERYONE is going to pay 0.675% on (some other gawdamn thing that I can't remember) and when it's all said and done....when it's all over....adding everything up....EVERYONE is going to pay another 2.32% on ALL INCOME.

Which is fine by me and as it would appear, fine by most....but...

It ain't free....and it is going to cost.

And that's okay....

And by the way, these numbers were put out by the CBO...these are not new taxes, less savings.

They are NEW additional COSTS on top of what you pay today.

I think that's a small price to pay but....it ain't a net zero or negative...this is a new addition to what you pay now and will INCREASE as time goes on (ever found a new federal program that went down in cost?).

please show me where I said or even alluded to the lie that it wasnt going to cost anything???
please dont put words in my mouth.
Im not as green as you think dear chap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Im saving that for posterity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I pay $69/month total for 2 Rx's that I paid $25 in co-pay's for when I had insurance. My costs have risen $44/month. But, nothing else was paid for those Rx's. $170 was paid for those Rx's when I had insurance, but only $25 out of my pocket. My therapist charges $150, but the insurance reduced it to $90, including a $15 co-pay. I now pay $65 ($50 more), but it's still $25 less than when I had insurance. I have yet to go to a physician for a checkup or anything, so I can't tell you what that cost is ($15 co-pay was all it was before). To add it all up, I pay $134 for 2 medications and a monthly therapy session. That is a grand total of $94 more out of my pocket, and $126 less than when I had insurance.

And how much was you insurance itself?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Until you get to the bits of wisdom here...

quote:

One of the big problems that we have here is the curative nature of our medical system. If we had a more preventive system, we'd have a lower spend.

One of the huge complaints about the ACA is the forcing of insurance companies to do more preventative screenings and treatments as opposed to curative.
Honestly, there are so very few on these boards who have bothered to read the law. I find it hilarious how many of you are bitching about the things this Law actually directly addresses.
Again, read the law.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yep, it is... and since insurance companies now are, at least, part owners in hospital systems, not to mention physican groups......

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

tazzy, you can make insurance companies pay for this and for that, but can you make someone go to the Dr. for this or that? Obamacare has told insurance companies they are not allowed to charge for certain services at all, ie. no co-pays even. That's all well and good, but isn't that simply going to drive up costs? Let's not forget that you still will have to follow the Dr.'s advice. But, maybe we can tax people who don't follow Dr.'s orders, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yep, it is... and since insurance companies now are, at least, part owners in hospital systems, not to mention physican groups......

Oh, I absolutely know that and am against it. Said it before, even. Return the management of hospitals back to the religious-groups that ran them before. I have been told (and I have not been able to find any data on the internet supporting or refuting this assertion) that when insurance companies took over the management of hospitals, costs started to skyrocket. He's older than I and has seen it with his own eyes. We are even on different sides of the aisle, so I have a hard time believing he'd be lying about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slagwanted

I've never understood why Americans are so hostile to the idea of a UK style National Health Service.  It's not perfect, but it does mean we have hospitals that exist only to serve patients with no profit motive.  It also means that if I get ill i'm covered whatever my insurance status.  We have private healthcare to of course, but that is the choice of the individual.  Like I say, the European health care systems are not perfect, but they do put saving lives as their one and only priority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Ya know a lot of folks pick on this guy's posts but, he's pretty much on the money.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)