Obamacare Survives, Supreme Court Rescues 'Big Health' - page 4
obamacare survives, supreme court rescues 'big health' just a quick comment on the supreme court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the obama healthcare legislation, i.e. that the... Read More
0Jun 29, '12 by jodyangelMy husband is from the UK and he hates the National Healthcare. He says you wait..and you wait..and then you wait somemore. He loves it here and the fact that when your MD tells you to go to a specilist you can Usually get an appt within a few weeks. He says it sometimes takes a year or more to see one in the UK.
Quote from mihaSKI don't agree. I am from Europe, lived there most of my life and decided to get my nursing degree in the States. I will never go back to their nationalized health care. What you read is not real, just bunch of the words to make them feel better about themselves. Ordinary people just suffer there.
5Jun 29, '12 by dudette10, BSN, RNQuote from java12No one here is complaining about the quality of care to the uninsured in this thread. What people are concerned about is bankruptcy because of being uninsured. Sometimes, even the insured go bankrupt because they didn't seek care at X hospital or get pre-certification or get the appropriate referral or their policy didn't cover the specific treatment or...For all those that think our system is
so awful, think about the children with DIPG who are able to get a second opinion from renowned neurosurgeons at Hopkins as well as the motorcyclist with no insurance who broke every major bone in his body at 2am, who was treated by husband in the middle of the night. He was treated as fully and thoroughly as any person with
insurance would be treated.
He sees several people a day in the same uninsured situation, he does not turn anyone away. There are a great many doctors who do this. I am sick of hearing about how bad it is, because for all the flaws there
is a lot of good.
The fact is whenever there is government funding involved, rules regarding access change.
The only patients that I've seen who are anxious about their bills and treatments are the ones who are employed and insured. They know that their insurance company has rules of access, but they often are not completely sure if the reason they came to the hospital and the inpatient stay "followed the rules." That's not to say that the uninsured or Medicare/Medicaid patients aren't anxious about bills, but the ones who verbalize it to me are employed/insured.
You also have to remember that our current system is a mix of privately and publicly funded care. The ACA doesn't change that either; it will still be a mix.
7Jun 29, '12 by BrandonLPNThis may seem like a stupid question, but...
If socialized medicine is so bad and inefficient, then why do pretty much all developed countries besides the US have it? And why do those countries have so much higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates? Aren't those the two best indicators of how well a nation's health care system is working?
And why are people getting so riled up about "being forced" to have health insurance? You can't drive without insurance. It's part of driving. Having to have health insurance is just part of being in society. Nobody is violating anybody's "rights".
1Jun 29, '12 by java12I cannot speak to how many bankruptcies occur due to clerical errors in not obtaining the proper referral. Also, I am not sold on the fact that the bill will foster specialist networks and myriads of choices.. I suppose time will tell. I plan to download a copy of the bill as noone really knows of everything that is in it, truly.
As far as actual bankruptcies, hospitals throughout the country take a significant financial blow on debt that is not reimbursed by the federal government for charity care rendered by such hospitals and physicians. This results in hospitals filing for bankruptcy, health care professional lay offs, and has contributed to the downfall of community hospitals in the USA.
The profit margin for our local hospital is 1%..there is not a whole lot of leeway there.
If current costs cannot be covered federally, additional costs rendered by providing insurance to those who cannot afford it will be placed on current insurance consumers=higher premiums and likely just as much if not more hassle.
1Jun 29, '12 by hawkfdcThrowing my $0.02 in.....
Although called the Affordable Care Act it is anything but. Private insurance companies are licking their chops to increase premiums to cover the required preventative care. As of this month, my insurance premiums are more than my mortgage. I fully anticipate another increase of at least 10% in the next few months.
I would be (partially as I haven't thought it completely through) in favor of a Medicare type system for everyone. I believe its the only viable solution. You're admitted for a UTI, Medicare will cover your inpatient stay for 5 days, everything including medications are covered. Home health (my particular discipline) if there is a proven need is covered. Medications and other extraneous stuff should be handled like the VA, you need lisinopril BID, here's a 30 day supply, we'll call you in 25 days. You've taken big pharma out of the picture.
What I absolutely detest about the ruling is that the Supreme Court said if the guv-ment says you must have insurance or pay a tax/penalty then thats it. Between this and the Kelo ruling, two major tenants of the Constitution were struck down, the right to own property and individual liberty. With this ruling there is nothing the government cannot make you do without penalty and that ladies and gentlemen is scary!
2Jun 29, '12 by BrandonLPNQuote from hawkfdcWell, if you refuse to obtain health insurance, you SHOULD be penalized. How is it your constitutional right to be irresponsible? The greater good of the society overrides individual rights.What I absolutely detest about the ruling is that the Supreme Court said if the guv-ment says you must have insurance or pay a tax/penalty then thats it. Between this and the Kelo ruling, two major tenants of the Constitution were struck down, the right to own property and individual liberty. With this ruling there is nothing the government cannot make you do without penalty and that ladies and gentlemen is scary!
4Jun 29, '12 by woohQuote from DebblesRNWell then stop voting for the people that keep giving rich folks like Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh tax cuts and the middle class won't have as big of a burden.I don't think the working class should carry the weight of the burden that is Obamacare, but it is what it is. We'll all be the ones shouldering it so that everyone can have free healthcare while we actually work for it.
5Jun 29, '12 by elkparkQuote from wooh
TOOOOOOO funny!!!!!!! Do you think they don't REALIZE that Canada has a much more "socialist" healthcare system than the one they would be fleeing the US to escape?? Are there really people out there who are that ignorant? (And, yet, they still feel perfectly qualified and entitled to voice opinions on political and social issues -- amazing ...)
6Jun 29, '12 by duckyluck111Quote from java12Canada has socialized medicine. They pay nothing. That is not what we are talking about doing here. Rest assured capitalism is alive and well in the US. There are people here in the US who have issues such as the ones you describe who can't even get ON a waiting list. They will never get care because they don't have insurance. The affordable care act will help them get insurance. That is all.My husband is an orthopaedic surgeon. He has seen many patients from Canada. Such patients have chosen to leave their country and have surgery here because they have been on a waiting list for two years or more, to have a hip or knee replacement.
The patients are in pain and cannot ambulate freely or live an active life. Unfortunately surgery is not available to them because their age or particular diagnosis is not a priority.
Many of these patients are in their 40's and told they will simply have to wait. Unable to contend with their condition, they come to the states and pay out of pocket.
0Jun 30, '12 by hawkfdc"well, if you refuse to obtain health insurance, you should be penalized. how is it your constitutional right to be irresponsible? the greater good of the society overrides individual rights."
i don't think so comrade. in the bill of rights, article v of the united states constitution, no one in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. and yes, being irresponsible provided your rights and the rights of other are not infringed upon by my irresponsibility is guaranteed by the constitution. if i choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-by being irresponsible i have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.
i'm all for the greater good provided it does not interfere with my individual freedom. is it lost on you that the government just said in this ruling that if you do not buy what they want you to buy, you must pay a tax?
0Jun 30, '12 by hawkfdc"Well, if you refuse to obtain health insurance, you SHOULD be penalized. How is it your constitutional right to be irresponsible? The greater good of the society overrides individual rights."
I don't think so comrade.In the Bill of Rights, Article V of the United States Constitution, no one in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And yes, being irresponsible provided YOUR rights and the rights of other are not infringed upon by my irresponsibility is guaranteed by the Constitution. If I choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-By being irresponsible I have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.I'm all for the greater good provided it does not interfere with my individual freedom. Is it lost on you that the government just said in this ruling that if you do not buy what they want you to buy, you must pay a tax?