Obamacare, or, I might be up a creek w/o a paddle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Bravo, Peggy! I agree with what you have posted here. That being said, I do believe, as I have posted elsewhere, that the Obama administration has not done an effective job in educating the public about ObamaCare, and due to this, all kinds of misinformation is out there. I really hold the administration accountable for this - It's almost as if Barak was thinking, Ok, I've got the masses covered, leave me in peace now so I can go play a few more rounds of golf. Or something like that. Great that ObamaCare has survived and is being more and more implemented, don't get me wrong, but poor communication/education about what ObamaCare is all about and what's in it for the average person/why exactly should they support it. Rob

---

Exactly Rob! I don't see it as him just moving on to other things, but actually kind of like the higher math teacher. We all had that teacher...knows math inside and out and understands it standing on his/her head, but just can't understand why 'we' can't get it! It's so plain! It's right there! >8)
I think Obama sees how it works and will benefit the country now and into the future, and can't understand how anyone can't see that. Some of us can, but a whole lot can't, and I agree with you that their biggest failing is in getting the right/factual information out. The democrats are not exactly known for their good PR!;)

Well, our local Blue Cross/Blue Shield site isn't working properly yet. They can't let me know if I qualify for a subsidy or not. Without a subsidy, the prices are higher than what I would pay through my employer.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in some sort of bubble. I'm in sticker shock, constantly. Like last year, I posted about my brother's car payment being $440 a month. That's more than I pay in rent. People told me that was fairly typical for a car payment. The last car payment I had was $80 a month (back in the '80s; and it was a used car). My rent has been my highest expense, next to food. I guess I need to get used to the fact that I'm not going to get away with a low health insurance premium. :( Very sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

Well, yesterday we got a letter from BC/BS with the bad news: They are dropping our special program. And there are five brochures full of info about their "new plans"--with outrageous prices

---

I got that same letter from BC for my bare-bones plan - as did my sister (who nows has employer coverage via Kaiser) got from Aetna (and apparently Aetna is pulling out of Calif completely on Jan. 1st) who she had while unemployed. A friend got a similair letter from another insurance carrier - Healthnet. For myself, as a military veteran with a service connected disability rated by the VA, I will drop my BC coverage and use the VA exclusively at no or little cost to me and not purchase any health insurance (I don't qualify for subsidies anyways only medicaid).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugalone

Alan, I didn't know that. I thought the idea was just to provide everyone with SOME sort of coverage, rather than having a large amount of uninsured. I seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Our household income is too high for us to get any kind of public "relief" and it's too low for me to comfortably afford the premiums. I'm lucky that my employer does offer some sort of insurance. But it's quite clear from the large leap in price that I can see on the forms at work that they do NOT want to pay for family members. They're more than happy to just cover the employee--but add a family member (or two or three) and the price skyrockets.

---

I have some friends who are very low income (minimum wage) and are supporting a few kids on that. They have employer health coverage but with very high out-of-pocket costs share for their monthly premiums to cover themselves and their family. However I don't believe that they will be able to recieve any subsidies even if they are below poverty level since the ACA doesn't apply to people who have health insurance available from their employers even if they are extremely low income. A group in dire need of help that got missed by the ACA. Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

I have some friends who are very low income (minimum wage) and are supporting a few kids on that. They have employer health coverage but with very high out-of-pocket costs share for their monthly premiums to cover themselves and their family. However I don't believe that they will be able to recieve any subsidies even if they are below poverty level since the ACA doesn't apply to people who have health insurance available from their employers even if they are extremely low income. A group in dire need of help that got missed by the ACA. Sad.

---

They still might, depending on their income and the policy cost. It would be worth checking into for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

They still might, depending on their income and the policy cost. It would be worth checking into for them.

---

That's good to know. I think this was one of the issues Walmart employees were striking over - low income workers who had to pay too much towards their employers health insurance - especially if people making 4 or 5 times their income can qualify for subsidies to pay for health insurance,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

That's good to know. I think this was one of the issues Walmart employees were striking over - low income workers who had to pay too much towards their employers health insurance.

---

This is why Trader Joe's stopped offering part-time employees health insurance - because they could get better coverage for lower cost on the exchanges than TJs could offer them, as long as they were not covered under an employer policy. TJs did them a favor and still gave them some money to subsidize the cost of an exchange policy.

I feel bad that TJs got bad press out of it when they were trying to do the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

This is why Trader Joe's stopped offering part-time employees health insurance - because they could get better coverage for lower cost on the exchanges than TJs could offer them, as long as they were not covered under an employer policy. TJs did them a favor and still gave them some money to subsidize the cost of an exchange policy.

I feel bad that TJs got bad press out of it when they were trying to do the right thing.

---

Yes, this! I think Trader Joes did the right thing too. Also - the few that work in restaurants that do have insurance usually have a mini-medical plan with something like 3K in coverage and that's it - a joke in other words. Employers that have such mini -policies really are doing their employees a favor by pushing them onto the exchanges. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

If frugalone's employer stopped offering insurance like Trader Joe's did, she could get a better deal on the exchanges. Trader Joe's did their part time employees a favor by not offering them health insurance any more. Now most can get better, highly subsidized insurance on the exchanges, instead of the inferior policy that was the best TJ's could offer.

---

True but then you are shifting the insurance cost from wealthy private businesses onto the taxpayer's. Making big business even greater wealth and increasing taxes for citizens and the deficit. All on the back of higher earners who cannot use the subsidies themselves, but get to see their premium's sky rocket as well as their taxes. And as more companies stop offering insurance coverage to their employees - or eliminating full time jobs or reducing hours to p/t once the employer mandate kicks in - the greater that tax burden increases. Add into that that the potential millions who will retire a decade or 2 early because they can get subsidized health insurance, as well as the younger people who choose not to work or just work p/t, and you increase that national debt and the requirement for more taxes. All the while doing nothing to control health insurance costs which will probably continue to rise now that dear old uncle Sam I'd footing the bill rather than big business for many.

Quote:

---

True but then you are shifting the insurance cost from wealthy private businesses onto the taxpayer's.

---

true but it's how every country does it, granted with healthcare systems that seem to control costs better, that is single payer. I do wonder if the policies the TJ workers get on the exchanges will be every bit comparable to those they had before (same deductable, same maximum out of pocket, same copays, same size network, with at least as many prestigious hospitals in it etc..) - because that, not just costs, is the comparison that actually has to be made, to evaluate the trade off. Not that non-unionized workers can necessarily complain much even if they got a bad deal.

Quote:

---

All the while doing nothing to control health insurance costs which will probably continue to rise now that dear old uncle Sam I'd footing the bill rather than big business for many.

---

Don't know that big business had much negotiating power there, but yes there is nothing to stop costs from rising (I mean is there any strong negotiating power to cap costs like say hosptialization costs of pharma costs?). And uncle Sam plus the consumer will foot the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

True but then you are shifting the insurance cost from wealthy private businesses onto the taxpayer's. Making big business even greater wealth and increasing taxes for citizens and the deficit. All on the back of higher earners who cannot use the subsidies themselves, but get to see their premium's sky rocket as well as their taxes. And as more companies stop offering insurance coverage to their employees - or eliminating full time jobs or reducing hours to p/t once the employer mandate kicks in - the greater that tax burden increases. Add into that that the potential millions who will retire a decade or 2 early because they can get subsidized health insurance, as well as the younger people who choose not to work or just work p/t, and you increase that national debt and the requirement for more taxes. All the while doing nothing to control health insurance costs which will probably continue to rise now that dear old uncle Sam I'd footing the bill rather than big business for many.

---

Not all businesses are wealthy. In countries where the government is involved in providing medical care, health care costs are all lower than the U.S. All other countries, including those with universal and government supported health care have much lower health care costs than the U.S. Not a single country on planet Earth has higher health care costs than the U.S., though many have higher rated health care systems.

Check out these charts on health care costs in the U.S. compared to other countries -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/

Almost all other developed countries have some form of universal healthcare, many with more robust economies. Affordable health care isn't a failed social experiment. It is the way the rest of the develop world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

And luckily for you, you can now simply add the cost of your healthcare to my tab. Would it be out of place for me to ask that you exercise more and eat better, you know, positive steps to limit my liability?

---

Or maybe just mandate that people on medicaid look for a full time job - even a minimum wage job - in order to get medicaid. But Alan, it's time for you to come over to the dark side and dump your private health insurance and sign up for the low cost taxpayer supported VA like me. I may not believe it's right but I'll use it anyway :-) .Quit your job and become a poet like Bae.

Actually can a person actually quit their job that has employer healthcare and sign up for the ACA or medicaid? I heard they couldn't but have never seen it written anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Pretty much this kind of thinking that I am exhibiting here - this is very European kind of thinking and to a lesser degree Australian and New Zealand thinking - these countries have more of a "we" than a "me" mentality going on. I was about 12 wnen I decided for me personally it was going to be more "we" and not so much "me" - at least as far as basic human rights issues such as access to health care go. Rob

---

The difference is that healthcare is available to ALL people in those countries and ALL people pay taxes to support it. We don't have this with the ACA. I see this is highly discriminatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reader99

Sadly, in FL it's not just income. My income is aboiut $500 a month but I have aqssets greate than $2,000 so I was turned down for Medicaid. For the foreseeable future I'll continue to not have access to jhealth care.

---

I be,sieve you can still apply for the subsidizes in states that don't have medicaid expansion and get all your medical insurance covered. That's what I read anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

You still have never answered my question: So your point is that they are much better off with no health care and zero doctors than they are with free health care that includes some but not all doctors and hospitals as participating plan providers?

---

Well I'll answer :-) I personally feel that having medical care - even sub par or very basic care - is an absolute need for our society. I feel that it should be treated like public education - it may not be the greatest but even at a lower functioning level it is MUCH better to have in place.. Higher income earners can always opt for a private plan with more comprehensive care and access just like they do with private education. Of course I'm an advocate of universal or public healthcare for all just not a fan of obamacare - but better for some then nothing while worse for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Not all businesses are wealthy. In countries where the government is involved in providing medical care, health care costs are all lower than the U.S. All other countries, including those with universal and government supported health care have much lower health care costs than the U.S. Not a single country on planet Earth has higher health care costs than the U.S., though many have higher rated health care systems.

Check out these charts on health care costs in the U.S. compared to other countries -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/

Almost all other developed countries have some form of universal healthcare, many with more robust economies. Affordable health care isn't a failed social experiment. It is the way the rest of the develop world works.

---

I agree. I think having universal care for all can be vastly less expensive. But we have a sort of a mish mash going on that leaves a lot of room for rampant increases for many as we see in the OP's original post. For example, the p/t people at TJ's, Home Depo, and other companies that are eliminating health insurance will be better off under the ACA yet their full time employees will be seeing some high cost increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

I agree. I think having universal care for all can be vastly less expensive. But we have a sort of a mish mash going on that leaves a lot of room for rampant increases for many as we see in the OP's original post. For example, the p/t people at TJ's, Home Depo, and other companies that are eliminating health insurance will be better off under the ACA yet their full time employees will be seeing some high cost increases.

---

Why do you say the FT employees will be seeing cost increases because of the ACA? Health insurance rates have been increasing significantly every year lately, ACA or no ACA.

The Rand Corporation found that "While there have been some reports that the cost of individual policies may jump sharply under health reform, a RAND analysis of 10 states and the United States overall predicts that there will be no widespread premium increase in the individual health insurance market."

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/08/29/index1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Of course I'm an advocate of universal or public healthcare for all just not a fan of obamacare - but better for some then nothing while worse for others.

---

The issue is that there currently are no other choices. We can go forward or we can go backward on the health care front. The ACA provides insurance to 28 million people, most of whom are working adults or kids, with health insurance. It allows people with cancer to get insurance and health care even it they lost their jobs because they were too sick to work.

That cancer patient could be anyone of us, our parents or our kids next week or next year. I like knowing that I will always have health care whenever I might need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

I be,sieve you can still apply for the subsidizes in states that don't have medicaid expansion and get all your medical insurance covered. That's what I read anyways.

---

Only if your income is above the Medicaid threshold levels. Otherwise Medicaid is not available in the states that opted out of Medicaid expansion. The federal government will pick up the tab for three years for Medicaid expansion, and 90% of the cost after that. There are few financial reasons for states not to expand Medicaid and help out their lowest income families. They are just playing politics with the health and lives of their lowest income earners at stake.

Related article on Medicaid Expansion -

http://www.webmd.com/health-insuranc...caid-expansion

[QUOTE=try2bfrugal;155802]... The federal government will pick up the tab for three years for Medicaid expansion, and 90% of the cost after that. ....

0% down! low low low monthly payments!

These offers and more huckster financial arrangements can be found on late night tv.

So let's see, I can pay one way or two ways: the feds pay (tax me once) or the states pay in addition (tax me twice.)

Win/win? or tax/tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

0% down! low low low monthly payments!

This offer and other huckster financial arrangements cant be found on late night tv.

So let's see, I can pay one way or two ways: the feds pay (tax me once) or the states pay in addition (tax me twice.)

Win/win? or tax/tax?

---

Keep in mind, countries with government supported health care have much lower overall health care costs. It is how the rest of the developed world works. Insurance for all and many times over lower health care costs. Win / win.

Right now the winners in health care are the drug companies and the "non-profits" who are free to charge whatever they want with little controls. Have you read the Time article Bitter Pill?

http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/231...ndAndGreed.pdf

Right now health care in the U.S. is a lose / lose situation for the average tax payer.

"Taken as a whole, these powerful [health care] institutions and the bills they churn out dominate the nation’s economy and put demands on taxpayers to a degree unequaled anywhere else on earth. In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries.

Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries."

We spend twice the GDP of other countries on health care and yet still have 28 million uninsured. Guess where this money is going now? Hint it isn't the tax payers.

The Medicaid situation in California is so dire that a court case was literally filed to prevent Medicaid cuts and didn't suceed. So much for the plan of throwing everyone on Medicaid being likely to work.

"The 10 percent cuts to reimbursements for services under California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, are set to begin phasing in next month, saving the state $387 million, but leaving many doctors and medical workers worried that there won’t be enough money left to take care of patients or themselves.

The cuts are intended to offset costs of Gov. Jerry Brown’s attempted expansion of Medi-Cal, while will offer Medicaid coverage to patients whose incomes are up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. But in order to keep spending on Medi-Cal under control, the administration hopes is cutting 10 percent off each reimbursement."
http://www.medicaldaily.com/californ...atients-health

"The reductions to providers like Ma will also create a massive glitch in the implementation of national healthcare reform — the cuts to Medi-Cal rates are to occur just as more people prepare to join the program under the Affordable Care Act. Currently 8.3 million poor Californians are covered by Medi-Cal, and more than 1 million new enrollees are expected beginning next year

State officials argue the 10% decrease is necessary to keep healthcare spending under control, but medical providers fear it will devastate an already shrinking workforce and jeopardize patient care.

California has among the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rates in the nation, they say, and the reduction will lead to fewer doctors opting to see those patients. If that happens, California Medical Assn. President Paul Phinney said, many Medi-Cal recipients won't be able to find anyone willing to treat them"
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun...-cuts-20130611

Yea everyone is going to go into Medicaid and happy times. Now it is possible that people exagerate the impacts of this (they all have their vested interests) and it's also quite possible the Medicaid situation could get very ugly in California. How much healthcare are people really going to get? I wouldn't want to be relying on Medicaid is what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Keep in mind, countries with government supported health care have much lower overall health care costs. It is how the rest of the developed world works. Insurance for all and many times over lower health care costs. Win / win. .pdf[/URL]


[/FONT]

---

You are assuming a causal relationship between single payer gubmnt health care and low costs. And, it might be true--in other countries. But it may not be true. There are other factors in play there.

I do not believe for one moment that Americans will put up with anything other the the biggest and the best because it is now practically free at least for those who Nanny G has determined can't afford 9.5% of their income to go towards it. The taxpayers will pay for it, subsidize it if nothing else. We must have the total best for everyone, or people like Rob will whine some upper class dude will get better treatment, no matter if the dude has personal cash to pay for more advanced care. We all DESERVE advanced, state of the art care. It's our right. etc etc.

That don't come cheap.

Quote:

---

You are assuming a causal relationship between single payer gubmnt health care and low costs. And, it might be true--in other countries. But it may not be true. There are other factors in play there.

---

I figure it's mostly true because they crack down hard on excessive pricing. Well since the ACA contains no costs controls .... I also think that's the main problem they'd have implementing single payer here. The major costs centers (hospitals, pharma - and why do we pay several times the cost of medicine here?) will fight it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

You are assuming a causal relationship between single payer gubmnt health care and low costs. And, it might be true--in other countries. But it may not be true. There are other factors in play there.

I do not believe for one moment that Americans will put up with anything other the the biggest and the best because it is now practically free at least for those who Nanny G has determined can't afford 9.5% of their income to go towards it. The taxpayers will pay for it, subsidize it if nothing else. We must have the total best for everyone, or people like Rob will whine some upper class dude will get better treatment, no matter if the dude has personal cash to pay for more advanced care. We all DESERVE advanced, state of the art care. It's our right. etc etc.

That don't come cheap.

---

There are many ways other countries work to constraint health care costs -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...countries.html

Almost all other developed countries see health care as a basic human right, like police protection and public school education. I understand you don't, that it is better to let lower income people die from treatable diseases like cancer and diabetes than to provide tax payer money to help for care. I don't know what to tell you except that is not the way the world works in other almost all other developed countries, and not how many people in the U.S. want it to work here either.

I think once the ACA is in and people see the benefits, there will be more support -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...macare/280165/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

We all DESERVE advanced, state of the art care. It's our right. etc etc.

---

I do agree with you completely on that point. Have you seen the UK version of Breaking Bad? The doctor in the comic says what kind of barbaric society would allow medical care to hinge on a person's wealth? The vast majority of the developed world views health care as basic human right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

The difference is that healthcare is available to ALL people in those countries and ALL people pay taxes to support it. We don't have this with the ACA. I see this is highly discriminatory.

---

Spartana, I have often said how much I appreciate your reactions to my posts as you often make me think. Once again you have made me think and BINGO - I think you have a very valid point here. As I have posted elsewhere in these health care threads we have going now, it looks like I will be on Medicaid to start with come January 1st and from what I understand it's going to be a freebie except for extremely minimal copays on visits and meds. Do I like this? Of course. Is it fair? 50/50 on that one. Honestly, I think there should be some kind of work requirement involved, even if it is something akin to volunteering at a food bank 25 hours a week or planting trees somewhere or collecting trash from the side of the road - it is not unfair for some kind of requirement to give something back to society. And this free Medicaid does not require this. LET THE CONSERVATIVES HERE NOT DROP DEAD OF SHOCK! I don't think it's right that since I am able bodied I should be handed this insurance with no strings. In Austria, where my mother's family is from, and a country I dearly wish the US was patterned on, there would be a requirement that I contribute somehow to society to justify the insurance. Even it were just 25 hours a week doing something brainless - some contribution to society somehow. I'm seriously thinking of volunteering at thrift shop at least a day a week to feel OK about having the insurance. Surprise to the conservatives out there! Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

I do agree with you completely on that point. Have you seen the UK version of Breaking Bad? The doctor in the comic says what kind of barbaric society would allow medical care to hinge on a person's wealth? The vast majority of the developed world views health care as basic human right.

---

As do I. Since the age of 12. This is one of the few stances I hold where I will not negotiate. As I have stated before, to me it's not my health care tab, or your health care tab, but OUR health care tab, as I see this as affecting the collective good of society. Rob

[QUOTE=iris lily;155806]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

... The federal government will pick up the tab for three years for Medicaid expansion, and 90% of the cost after that. ....

0% down! low low low monthly payments!

This offer and other huckster financial arrangements cant be found on late night tv.

So let's see, I can pay one way or two ways: the feds pay (tax me once) or the states pay in addition (tax me twice.)

Win/win? or tax/tax?

---

This is a big problem right here I have with America and I not blaming you IL. My experience in the US is that many think this way along the lines of what you have posted here.

My issue is thinking in terms of your own pocketbook over the collective good of society. But, people who think this way usually have not been exposed to something along the lines of Western Europe where everyone can tap into the perks at some time or other and there is no stigma involved in doing so. Since everyone can tap in at some point, there is not as much reason to think in terms of your own pocketbook as there is here as tapping in is not quite the same in the US.

I'm going to be 47 in November and I'm realizing how short our lives on this Earth are. This kind of thinking about your pocketbook above most else - is it worth the stress involved? To me the answer is a big NO. YMMV, I get that. Rob

One way I see to keep Medicaid costs down and quality reasonable? And I get that my idea is not going to happen.....it just isn't. I would have no problem with folks being sent to the safer border towns in Mexico for health care - especially for expensive procedures. My experience has been the quality of health care I have received in Mexico at border hospitals, at least in Mexicali, surpasses the quality I have received in the US those few periods of time in my life when I held private employer based insurance. Lots and lots of money could be saved doing this but it will never happen. There will be some not completely unfounded safety concerns, and it would be a public admission to the world that the US system doesn't work and the US is not going to make such a statement, not even to keep costs reasonable and line with what is possible and feasible. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Actually can a person actually quit their job that has employer healthcare and sign up for the ACA or medicaid? I heard they couldn't but have never seen it written anywhere.

---

Why wouldn't someone who is unemplyed be able to signup for ACA mandated health insurance? It's required.

Maybe I am missing your question entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

One way I see to keep Medicaid costs down and quality reasonable? And I get that my idea is not going to happen.....it just isn't. I would have no problem with folks being sent to the safer border towns in Mexico for health care - especially for expensive procedures. My experience has been the quality of health care I have received in Mexico at border hospitals, at least in Mexicali, surpasses the quality I have received in the US those few periods of time in my life when I held private employer based insurance. Lots and lots of money could be saved doing this but it will never happen. There will be some not completely unfounded safety concerns, and it would be a public admission to the world that the US system doesn't work and the US is not going to make such a statement, not even to keep costs reasonable and line with what is possible and feasible. Rob

---

How about requiring that just those who receive health insurance with heavy subsidies,say, 50% and more are required to travel to Mexico for their care. What say you about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

How about requiring that just those who receive health insurance with heavy subsidies,say, 50% and more are required to travel to Mexico for their care. What say you about that?

---

Personally I'm OK with this. I have experienced high quality health care in Mexico that cost much less than it does on our side of the border. I can only imagine what kind of uproar there would be if this were actually put into practice, at least at first, due to the common American perceptions of Mexico, which are not 100% inaccurate. Like with anything else, you have to do the research and find the loopholes in the system. In this case, where is the quality cheap and high, combined with where is fairly safe to be about town in daylight? At the moment, Mexicali has all this to offer. I also understand that that could change though.....Of course there are cartels in Mexicali, they just have not had their turf challenged, so there is no reason there for the gore one now associates with most of the country. Another safe place is Tecate, not too far from San Diego, and also Los Algodones - but in Los Algodones you are limited to basic primary care doctors - for any procedures, they are just going to refer you to Mexicali. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

I do agree with you completely on that point. Have you seen the UK version of Breaking Bad? The doctor in the comic says what kind of barbaric society would allow medical care to hinge on a person's wealth? The vast majority of the developed world views health care as basic human right.

---

I'm not sure what a cartoon character's musings prove. But I actually like the NHS model in the UK, the British are so civilized and sensible. NHS exists for the average Joe and then Harley Street physicians will serve those who don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hoi poi. I, personally, would be content with NHS most likely. I'm a little less enamored of the Canadian system where there IS no opportunity for private treatment, well, unless you jump the border to the U.S.

The premise of Breaking Bad (U.S. Original) is that Walter White cannot afford, with his public employee health insurance, the state of the art treatment that his doctor recomends. I found that, and the latter version with Federal employee and brother-in-law Hank, preposterous. As if these public employees dhon't have insurance that's the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

I'm not sure what a cartoon character's musings prove. But I actually like the NHS model in the UK, the British are so civilized and sensible. NHS exists for the average Joe and then Harley Street physicians will serve those who don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hoi poi. I, personally, would be content with NHS most likely. I'm a little less enamored of the Canadian system where there IS no opportunity for private treatment, well, unless you jump the border to the U.S.

The premise of Breaking Bad (U.S. Original) is that Walter White cannot afford, with his public employee health insurance, the state of the art treatment that his doctor recomends. I found that, and the latter version with Federal employee and brother-in-law Hank, preposterous. As if these public employees dhon't have insurance that's the best.

---

Something I find interesting about border Mexican health care - and you may find interesting too, IL - is that it is not all Americans going to Mexicali/Hermosillo/Tecate for health care - you will find Canadians in the mix too, who are unhappy with the waits for care and the quality is high and the prices are so amazingly low in these places for care - it's almost foolish in a way not to go for them. And remember, the prices that look so incredibly low to us - Mexicans pay even less - we pay more as the market will gratefully bear it. So they are grateful for us coming down as they are making good money on us, and we come out way ahead, too. It's win/win for most people. But I digress - my points was that yep some folks flee socialized medicine in Canada and opt for Mexico for health care, and I would agree this may say something about socialized medicine in Canada. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

As do I. Since the age of 12. This is one of the few stances I hold where I will not negotiate. As I have stated before, to me it's not my health care tab, or your health care tab, but OUR health care tab, as I see this as affecting the collective good of society. Rob

---

. But it really isn't our health care tab if you work hard for a good wage and pay high taxes as opposed too someone who works casually, gets free or subsidized health care, food stamps, free school lunch etc. As I have said before, growing up in foster care teaches you a lot. In another time or country I might have been a beggar or prostitute. I lucked out. The people who thought society owed them had a heck of a hard time. People who are thankful for everything they receive and work hard to contribute to society are whom I admire. I could have spent my life depending on social services I am proud to have pulled myself out of poverty. Safety nets are in place to give us a hand up when we are down. No one owes you anything in life. The ACA erases some of the problems, such as pre existing conditions. But somewhere people will be paying, either through premiums or taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

. But it really isn't our health care tab if you work hard for a good wage and pay high taxes as opposed too someone who works casually, gets free or subsidized health care, food stamps, free school lunch etc. As I have said before, growing up in foster care teaches you a lot. In another time or country I might have been a beggar or prostitute. I lucked out. The people who thought society owed them had a heck of a hard time. People who are thankful for everything they receive and work hard to contribute to society are whom I admire. I could have spent my life depending on social services I am proud to have pulled myself out of poverty. Safety nets are in place to give us a hand up when we are down. No one owes you anything in life. The ACA erases some of the problems, such as pre existing conditions. But somewhere people will be paying, either through premiums or taxes.

---

And I don't disagree with you. My goal is to not spend much of my life on expanded Medicaid. I have started the enrollment process to go back to school full time here at Phoenix College - it is a local community college - to get a certificate in web development and design. My hope is to become self employed at some point and to no longer qualify for Medicaid and get my insurance from the exchanges - or who knows - maybe even not qualify for subsidies there at some point? We'll see. But I'm not considering expanded Medicaid a long term lifestyle, just insurance to bridge me until I can establish better income. Rob

PS Came back to add I still do see it as our tab.....this has not changed for me. But I also see it as my duty to better my lot in life so that my taxes can subsidize the next person in my current situation. This is what I mean by our tab. I don't mean a long term lifestyle of freebies - though OTOH were I in Western Europe, I would have much different views on this. I have had to take my thinking and alter it a little so that it has a chance to work somehow in this country. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lily

I'm not sure what a cartoon character's musings prove. But I actually like the NHS model in the UK, the British are so civilized and sensible. NHS exists for the average Joe and then Harley Street physicians will serve those who don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hoi poi. I, personally, would be content with NHS most likely. I'm a little less enamored of the Canadian system where there IS no opportunity for private treatment, well, unless you jump the border to the U.S.

The premise of Breaking Bad (U.S. Original) is that Walter White cannot afford, with his public employee health insurance, the state of the art treatment that his doctor recomends. I found that, and the latter version with Federal employee and brother-in-law Hank, preposterous. As if these public employees dhon't have insurance that's the best.

---

The teachers in the public school district our kids went to do not have employer provided health insurance. None at all.

The cartoon is significant because it exemplifies the attitude difference in providing health care to all. People receiving tax payer funded government care aren't consider freeloaders in the UK. Everyone gets free health care regardless of ability to pay.

We know many people who rely on the UK public health care system, and their treatment overall seems very good. Few have ever had private insurance. They are generally very happy with their health care. They get free health care whether they are working or not, CEO or janitor. It is all tax payer funded. The last time WHO ranked health care systems by country, the UK was ranked 18th and the US 38th (for much higher cost).

No system is "perfect" with immediately accessible unlimited care for any and all issues.

Canadians or Americans who don't want to "wait" will always be able to secure whatever they want if they have enough money. UK//EU residents do the same thing.

I prefer to accept a system that is more accessible to all. I have friends of all ages in the UK and their care is generally excellent. They do have geographic differences but so do we (which will probably not change). Care in rural Mississippi is far different than care in a city with nine major hospitals and a medical school.