FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


US health care changes take effect today. SUPER





handfleisch
Parts of the health care bill take effect today. Millions of Americans can have health insurance as of today that they wouldn't have had without the Democrat's push for the health care reform. Millions of children are now protected from discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, millions of people age 18-25 can now stay on their parent's insurance, no one has to deal with annual or lifetime limits on health care coverage from their insurance companies and preventive health care coverage is now mandatory at no extra cost. It's AWESOME. We would have NONE of this if the Republicans were still in charge. We need to wake people up about this for November.

Quote:
The six-month anniversary of the new health law marks the official effective date of a raft of new consumer protections, including a ban on most so-called rescissions. That's the insurance industry practice of revoking an insurance policy retroactively, after a policyholder has racked up hefty medical bills.
plus:
Quote:

* Coverage for Young Adults: Allows young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until they reach their 26th birthday. Young adults do not have to be dependents, do not have to live with their parents, and may even be married and still qualify. But the young adults may not have access to health insurance coverage at their own job.

* No Discrimination against Children with Pre-Existing Conditions: Bars insurance companies from denying coverage or benefits to children under age 19 with pre-existing health conditions.

* No More Lifetime Limits on Benefits: Bars all insurance companies from imposing lifetime caps on the amount of coverage provided under a health insurance policy.

* Restrictions and Phase-Out of Annual Coverage Limits: Phases out the ability of insurance companies to impose annual benefits limits provided under a health insurance policy. For the first year, the annual limit can be no less than $750,000. That rises to $1.25 million in September 2011, $2 million in 2010, and -- by 2014 -- annual limits will no longer be allowed.

* Preventive Care with No Co-Pays or Deductibles. Requires most insurance plans to offer a wide range of preventive health services at no out-of-pocket cost to the patient.


read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130040790
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
We need to wake people up about this for November
Maybe Obama has already beaten this to a pulp Handfleisch from a campaign point of view. Maybe people are getting a bit bored with it as a major item in his list of accomplishments and are more concerned with how effectively and economically Obama will be administering it. Along the "proof is in the pudding" lines.
c'tair
It feels good to be included in the healthcare system now on. It was a total surprise coming from a much poorer country into the US and realizing that such a wealthy country didn't have social healthcare.
ocalhoun
And this is paid for how?
Voodoocat
Quote:
that such a wealthy country didn't have social healthcare.


That is the great misconception: America does have social healthcare programs, they are called Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly and Medicaid is for the poor. In addition to these Federal programs, many States have their own programs. Programs such as PeachCare for Georgia, Na Pu'uwai for native Hawiians, and the Massechusetts healthcare system, and the list goes on.
c'tair
ocalhoun wrote:
And this is paid for how?

Out of tax money, of course.
However, I've seen a comparison of the Canadian and American healthcare systems and the Canadian one can provide better services for a lesser cost due to two simple things:
-Better organization of bureaucracy
-Smaller obesity rates and other 'civilization' illnesses

The bureaucracy problem is huge, I've lived in Poland and the UK for some and both of them have much easier and streamlined systems of handling documents to get things done than the US. Well, Poland comes in close to the US, but come one, it's a post-communist country without such amazing thinktanks like MIT or Darpa, but I've never had so many problems with getting easy things done.
deanhills
c'tair wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
And this is paid for how?

Out of tax money, of course.
However, I've seen a comparison of the Canadian and American healthcare systems and the Canadian one can provide better services for a lesser cost due to two simple things:
-Better organization of bureaucracy
-Smaller obesity rates and other 'civilization' illnesses

The bureaucracy problem is huge, I've lived in Poland and the UK for some and both of them have much easier and streamlined systems of handling documents to get things done than the US. Well, Poland comes in close to the US, but come one, it's a post-communist country without such amazing thinktanks like MIT or Darpa, but I've never had so many problems with getting easy things done.
I don't agree with your comparison of the US and Canadian systems. The cultures of the two countries are very different. If Canadians want expensive treatment that they can't find in Canada, they go to the US to have them. That is the difference between a capatalistic society where you can choose the medical treatment you want and pay for it, and a socialist one where you can only get the common denominator one designed to fit the "norm" of the majority. Furthermore, there is a great difference between the system in Canada and the one in the UK. Dentistry is not included in Canada for example, and people do have to make monthly contributions. Not all medical treatments are always included. I'm not knocking the system in Canada, I'm just saying that it is natural that it would have its limitations in comparison to the standards that a large number of people from the United States are used to, and may have to drop as a consequence. Also, that you may be equating the system in Canada with your own, or the English system, and the Canadian one is not as comprehensive as yours.

I also like Voodoocat's contribution, as of course the US Federal Government has been responsible for MediCare and Medical Aid programmes, and they mucked it up. So now the same Government has been given the go ahead by its people to be successful with a new programme that is going to cost much much MUCH more to implement ... the equivalent of a blank cheque? To me the Government has no record of being good at anything to do with MediCare, so I am already doubtful of the outcome, and I really would like to see how this is going to bring the medical costs per head down? Has any Federal Government ever shown that it can bring costs down of anything?

And Ocalhoun is of course dead on the money, who is going to pay for it all? More debt? And a free-falling dollar? Interesting times ahead for sure.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
We need to wake people up about this for November.


My personal beliefs aside, I would say that people are VERY awake about this issue for November.
The problem is, from your point of view, a large majority of people don't like it.....it is one of the
reasons people are going to be voting AGAINST Democrats in November. Most people have
big problems with the bill.....but I think you will see a 'woken up public' in November with
high voter participation, just not sure you will like the direction it takes.

Of course what you MAY have meant was that we need to 'wake up' ONLY those voters
who agree with your points of view and make sure THEY vote......but those other pesky people
(you know, the conservatives) not so much. And there, you may be right. The polls I've
seen show MUCH greater enthusiasm and intention to vote among the conservative side
of the aisle and much more apathy on the liberal side of things.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
We need to wake people up about this for November.


My personal beliefs aside, I would say that people are VERY awake about this issue for November.
The problem is, from your point of view, a large majority of people don't like it.....it is one of the
reasons people are going to be voting AGAINST Democrats in November. Most people have
big problems with the bill.....but I think you will see a 'woken up public' in November with
high voter participation, just not sure you will like the direction it takes.

Of course what you MAY have meant was that we need to 'wake up' ONLY those voters
who agree with your points of view and make sure THEY vote......but those other pesky people
(you know, the conservatives) not so much. And there, you may be right. The polls I've
seen show MUCH greater enthusiasm and intention to vote among the conservative side
of the aisle and much more apathy on the liberal side of things.


Maybe I can clear up your confusion, maybe you need the CAPS to UNDERSTAND. My point is that many people are ill-informed about the positive effects on society happening right now from the health care reform, and the supposed lack of enthusiasm is in fact LACK of knowledge about the LIVES protected, BANKRUPTCIES PREVENTED thanks to health care reform. The reason for the LACK of knowledge is that there is no real counterpoint to Fox (Faux) News, talk radio and the other right wing media sources of disinformation and disappointment on this issue -- there is only Faux on one side and a bunch of middle-of-the-road media on the other.

How many know that millions of Americans can now have health insurance that they wouldn't have had without the Democrat's push for the health care reform, or that MILLIONS OF KIDS are now protected from discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, or MILLIONS OF PEOPLE age 18-25 can now stay on their parent's insurance, no one has to DEAL with annual or lifetime limits on health care coverage from their insurance companies and preventive health care coverage is now mandatory at no extra cost. This doesn't count all the other benefits that will take EFFECT over the next few years.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Maybe I can clear up your confusion, maybe you need the CAPS to UNDERSTAND. My point is that many people are ill-informed about the positive effects on society happening right now from the health care reform, and the supposed lack of enthusiasm is in fact LACK of knowledge about the LIVES protected, BANKRUPTCIES PREVENTED thanks to health care reform. The reason for the LACK of knowledge is that there is no real counterpoint to Fox (Faux) News, talk radio and the other right wing media sources of disinformation and disappointment on this issue -- there is only Faux on one side and a bunch of middle-of-the-road media on the other.

How many know that millions of Americans can now have health insurance that they wouldn't have had without the Democrat's push for the health care reform, or that MILLIONS OF KIDS are now protected from discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, or MILLIONS OF PEOPLE age 18-25 can now stay on their parent's insurance, no one has to DEAL with annual or lifetime limits on health care coverage from their insurance companies and preventive health care coverage is now mandatory at no extra cost. This doesn't count all the other benefits that will take EFFECT over the next few years.


Well, see YOU see all these positives. A large MAJORITY, see the negatives. The part where they
will be FORCED into buying health insurance.....causing those people who are right on the
edge to LOSE their homes! You can call it whatever you want, but once the government
MANDATES that we buy something, it's a tax. The reason for your IGNORANCE on this issue,
is that you REFUSE to see the other side of it and merely go back to your typical talking
points (Fox News, biased media, disinformation etc..) It could NEVER be that people don't
actually like this bill on it's merits, because after all, the GREAT handfleisch says it is
GOOD for us, and YOU know better than any of the actual people affected what is good
for them. That's is exactly the attitude the Democrats had pushing this thing through
.....'we don't care that you don't like it, WE know whats good for you better than YOU do.'
And that attitude is EXACTLY what is going to hurt them in November. And then you can
whine about how Fox New 'misled' everyone into voting against the poor Democrats who
were just trying to help them.
Bikerman
But if people were not paying before then the cost of the US system goes from ridiculous to criminal.
This notion that the costs of insurance will bankrupt lots of people is a little ironic from where I sit.
In 2001-2002 62% of ALL personal bankrupcies in the US were either entirely or largely due to medical bills, not to mention the crippling costs for many companies of providing employer insurance.

So previously you had a system that cost about twice as much, per capita, as comparable systems in the developed world, didn't actually cover about 16% of the population, under-covered about 30%, was responsible for bankrupting between quarter and half a million people a year, and had some of the worst outcomes in the western world in terms of performance indicators...

Hard to see how it could get worse really....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States



I still smile when I remember Rudy Giuliani slagging off our socialised health care system back in 2001 with invented figures about prostate cancer survival rates....oh the irony...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
But if people were not paying before then the cost of the US system goes from ridiculous to criminal.
I still would like to know in the total and overall picture how this Bill is going to decrease the cost of medical care? The primary health care system is firmly in the hands of private enterprise in the United States, not like in Canada and the UK where most of the Primary Care system is in the hands of the Government. How will the availability of insurance to everyone create a medical system that is lower in cost? Government can compel everyone to get medical insurance, but can it compel the private practitioners and hospitals to drop their prices?
Bikerman
That is just wrong. Healthcare in the UK isn't 'in the hands' of the Government. Doctors are self employed (and always have been). Primary health trusts (hospitals) are run by autonomous boards. The only part the government plays is setting general policy and providing the money through taxation. There really isn't that much difference. There is an amount of money in the country. You can either have people paying for health out of their wages after tax, or before. We pay before. This allows efficiencies of scale and means that we have negotiating power with the drug companies - which is why we pay about 1/2 of what Americans do for the same drugs. When the drug company is selling to lots of private clinics, who in turn charge what they can get away with, then there is no downward pressure on price. When a drug company has to justify their price to the NHS that means they either get it right and sell millions, or they sell nothing because the negotiators just say bog-off.
All this nonsense about people being driven into poverty by insurance costs is because of the system and has nothing to do with socialised health care. The US has tried to implement a bastardised system which in some ways is the worst of both worlds - but even that should be capable of holding costs down much better than the mess it replaced.
deanhills
The quote below is from a report that was written in 1999 to compare the primary health system in the US to that of the UK. There is a HUGE difference between the two countries.
Quote:
In contrast to the United States, the British government runs a nationalized secondary and tertiary medical care system. Primary care services are contractually purchased by the government
from individual general practitioners. Within this system the government pays age-specific fixed capitation fees for acute and most chronic medical care, as well as fee-for-service payments
for much preventive care and some specific chronic disease monitoring. Thus the responsibility and accountability for health care and its costs are centralized and public in the United
Kingdom, despite some extremely modest, recent, and soon-to-be-abandoned attempts at decentralization and quasi-privatization. These attempts included the creation of so-called "NHS
internal markets" (modest hospital competition by US standards) and of fund holding (modest, by US standards, financial risk sharing with general practices for secondary medical care
costs, such as orthopedic referrals and physical therapy).
Furthermore, medical professionals are leaving the UK as the medical profession in the UK is probably one of the most painful, unrewarding, stressful and backbiting ones to survive in as a medical professional. It is full of bureaucracy and paperwork, and that to me means over-regulated by Government. Doctors are basically working for the Government with some small change for themselves.

The NHS is far from perfect, and if it has shown low cost per head then it has been skimping a lot on its equipment and services. Refer below to a comparison between its services with those in Europe:
Quote:
A lack of resources is partly to blame for our poor results. An extensive study last year found that in Britain there are 8.2 MRI and CT scanners per million people; the European average is 11.

There are also far fewer doctors in Britain: 2.5 per 1,000 population, compared to 3.4 in France, for instance. This causes delays in diagnosis.
Just as significant is NHS rationing of lifesaving drugs - for example, the bowel cancer drug Avastin and Nexavar, the only treatment offering any chance of survival for patients with advanced liver cancer - are routinely used in other European countries.
These drugs typically offer three to six months of extra life, but some patients can survive for years. Although the drug-approving body NICE agrees they work, it says the health system cannot afford them.
Despite the much-heralded reduction in waiting times, these patients often wait longer between scanning, diagnosis and treatment than in other European countries.
In France, for instance, the investigation for breast cancer - the appointment, scan and diagnosis - is all done within 48 hours, says Professor Sikora.
'Here we have a long, drawn-out appointment system where patients wait to see a doctor, then a specialist, then for the CT scan and then the results. It can all go on for months - allowing time for cancer to spread and become more difficult to treat.

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
But if people were not paying before then the cost of the US system goes from ridiculous to criminal.
This notion that the costs of insurance will bankrupt lots of people is a little ironic from where I sit.
In 2001-2002 62% of ALL personal bankrupcies in the US were either entirely or largely due to medical bills, not to mention the crippling costs for many companies of providing employer insurance.

So previously you had a system that cost about twice as much, per capita, as comparable systems in the developed world, didn't actually cover about 16% of the population, under-covered about 30%, was responsible for bankrupting between quarter and half a million people a year, and had some of the worst outcomes in the western world in terms of performance indicators...

Hard to see how it could get worse really....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
I still smile when I remember Rudy Giuliani slagging off our socialised health care system back in 2001 with invented figures about prostate cancer survival rates....oh the irony...

Well, you're arguing facts and rationality vs. emotion and ignorance. You can look at "alaskadude's" posting, and he thinks opinions should dictate facts and not the other way around, so therefore if a majority of the people of a country think the earth is flat, that this should be considered the reality. (And that's not such an extreme analogy -- 44% of Americans think "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" according to one poll).

"Know Nothings" still heavily influence US life and governance, and fighting the willful ignorance is a constant battle here (much harder now with Alaskadude's heroes, talk radio and FOX agitprop.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#cite_note-US44-5
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
"Know Nothings" still heavily influence US life and governance, and fighting the willful ignorance is a constant battle here (much harder now with Alaskadude's heroes, talk radio and FOX agitprop.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#cite_note-US44-5
With respect Handfleisch, if I am of a different opinion, it means that nothing you have said has changed my mind yet. So perhaps this could be a simple case of failure on your part to have convinced me otherwise?

I'm certain that Americans are justified in asking what the REAL costs are going to be, and how they will be paid for. Simple common sense questions. If you need a 1000 page plus Bill in order to set it all out, then you are really looking at an enormous bureaucratic machinery with all kinds of hidden nooks and crannies that are going to revisit everyone in the most painful of ways. I can just see the millions of forms that will have to be prepared, and the machinery that will have to be set up to process those forms and attend to all the enquiries. None of it will be cost free of course. So out of which budget will all of that be coming?
watersoul
This healthcare topic always seems to inflame passions on both sides of the argument in whichever forum I read similar discussions.
I won't comment on what I think is right or wrong in the US current policy, I don't know the details enough to say what is "right" for a country that I've never even visited.
I will say though, that the times the NHS in the UK have saved my life after accidents, and a few months ago when I had a deep hand injury requiring 45 stiches, I was left happier paying the thousands of pounds tax I do each year.

I can arrive at any NHS hospital in my country, and be treated at the point of need with no question about how much money I have or which insurance company will cover my treatment.
Yes, it's not a perfect system, yes, we might not have the tech that private hospitals in the US have, but it is undeniable that without our system, both myself and many millions of other people would have died prematurely.

On the point of a "poorer service in the UK" mentioned earlier, the NHS will even fund treatment abroad if there is a definite need for it and it's likely to improve a patients condition. I wonder if anyone knew that? No need to be "cutting edge" catering for everyone if an alternative can be purchased abroad when rare conditions etc need something more specialist.

Dental treatment is also free for people on benefits or low incomes, and at reduced cost to employed people in an NHS practice. Admittedly the options are less than private there, expect false teeth you have to stick in, rather than expensive implants. But overall it's basic service will allow people to stay "mouth healthy" and go out to work instead of suffering at home with an untreated abcess etc.

But forgetting the NHS for a moment, every UK citizen and citizens from other countries with a socialised healthcare system, are free to purchase their own private medical insurance if they want to. I personally don't as I've been amazingly happy with the NHS every time they've patched my damaged body up, although I could easily afford to buy my own cover if I wanted to.

Like I said, I don't know the answer, but going more closely back to the original post, if a new system has been set up over there, and it means people don't have to choose between paying for expensive treatment or paying their rent/mortgage, I would think thats a good thing. It's just a pity that so many private companies will all be taking their bit of profit out of it.
I'm no socialist in any way, but the health of my fellow countrymen is one of the few things I'm actually happy to be screwed over for each month by my government. In fact, I probably owe the state some money for the treatment I've received over the years (through injury mostly) compared to the "National Insurance" deduction each month in my wage - and what solely private treatment would have cost me.

Whatever the politics, I wish good luck to all those in the US if these changes truly help the 40+ million people who previously had no healthcare - that situation could never honestly be argued to be acceptable, could it?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
The quote below is from a report that was written in 1999 to compare the primary health system in the US to that of the UK. There is a HUGE difference between the two countries.
I never said otherwise. An 11 yr old study is not a good source for data, however.
There are internationally recognised indicators for health services throughout the world. Indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy etc. The US system does very badly on these. In addition, there are the reports produced by the World Health Organisation which ranks the US system 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The UK (and Europe as a whole) both score well above that level.
Quote:
Furthermore, medical professionals are leaving the UK as the medical profession in the UK is probably one of the most painful, unrewarding, stressful and backbiting ones to survive in as a medical professional. It is full of bureaucracy and paperwork, and that to me means over-regulated by Government. Doctors are basically working for the Government with some small change for themselves.
And your evidence for this is? Oh yes, the Daily Mail....worthless garbage.
Doctors in the UK are comparatively well paid, and they choose whether to accept an NHS contract or not. The AVERAGE GP who DOES sign the NHS contract in the UK earns over a hundred K per year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6157219.stm

The latest authoratitive figures on GP working practices is from 2007 and it shows that the average GP works a 38 hour week.
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/gpworkload

In other words you are talking nonsense.
Quote:
The NHS is far from perfect, and if it has shown low cost per head then it has been skimping a lot on its equipment and services. Refer below to a comparison between its services with those in Europe:
Worthless garbage again - the Daily Mail.
If you want facts then go to the proper studies, not a right-wing rag.
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20182.pdf
I didn't say the US system cost twice as much as the UK - I said it costs about twice as much as ALL comparable systems, including the rest of Europe.

You keep trotting out discredited nonsense on this matter and it is evident that you don't know what you are talking about.
Voodoocat
I must admit that it is extremely frustrating to see graphs like the one above. If American life expenctancies were higher I would not mind, but actually paying more and still having a shorter life expectancy is just wrong.

First of all, I don't see how having the government control healthcare in America will lower the cost. Historically, Medicare and Medicaid costs have been rising faster than the private sector:
Quote:
Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more,
per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in
America apart from Medicare and Medicaid.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf

If these two Federal programs have not contained costs, why should we expect that yet another Federal program will fare better?

Secondly, I believe that there are numerous reasons that American healthcare is more expensive than that of other countries. Prescription drugs cost more in America since the government does not control the cost (except for Medicare and Medicaid). Another expense: far more access to cutting edge medical equipement. Finally, American doctor salaries are much higher than in other countries.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/

This still does not explain the lower life expectancy. Crying or Very sad
Bikerman
But notice that UK doctors earn the most apart from the US. Yet there is not such a big difference between the UK and other european countries in terms of cost per patient..so doctors salary doesn't seem to correlate very well with cost of provision...

The notion that US patients have access to more cutting edge technology that the rest of the world is a bit of a myth. We have MRIs and other state of the art kit as well.
What actually happens is that Americans are over-treated. The doctors tend to be frightened of possible law suits and therefore run whole series of tests which are not necessary just to cover their asses.
You also have greater duplication/redundancy of provision. In a community where 1 MRI scanner could easily cover everyone, there might be 3 or 4 because each private company wants to have its own...

The simple fact is that the rest of the world manage to treat their populations for a fraction of the cost of the US and they all have some form of government control, so unless there is something very different about the US government it is difficult to sustain the argument that it must cost more.....

The cost of Medicare is BOUND to rise faster than the rest since it covers the over 65s and that demographic is rising fast....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
There are internationally recognised indicators for health services throughout the world. Indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy etc. The US system does very badly on these. In addition, there are the reports produced by the World Health Organisation which ranks the US system 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The UK (and Europe as a whole) both score well above that level.
But will universal insurance for all in the United States upgrade the American standards so that they will be on the same level, or just be a situation where it provides medical insurance to everyone? You yourself mentioned previously that there is just so much money in the pot. So for me it would have to be logical if that money moves into insurance, then the prices for medical services will have to be lowered? Or money will have to be found elsewhere to subvent the additional millions of patients?
Bikerman wrote:
And your evidence for this is?
I have this on good authority from medical practitioners who are successful in their own right and who are working in the UAE. If you use BMJ or the BMA or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons as sources, then I may just ..... believe you, but what I mentioned is the opinion of all those living and working where I am.

Furthermore, here is some evidence that all is not as straightforward as to the hours of work you mentioned. The source is theRoyal College of Surgeons dated August 2010 :
Quote:
The survey paints a picture of an NHS that, one year on, is still is totally overstretched due an arbitrary hours regulation. Patients are increasingly being assessed only by junior members of staff or routinely passed between many different doctors with varying levels of experience often with unsafe, inadequate or no handover procedure. Senior surgeons, under pressure to get through operating lists, are now operating alone while their juniors manage wards without support and guidance because working rotas are so finely stretched. This lack of exposure to vital hands-on training alongside experienced colleagues is rapidly eroding NHS care and causing a critical shortage of capable, skilled surgeons in the future.

John Black, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: “To say the European Working Time Regulations has failed spectacularly would be a massive understatement. Despite previous denial by the Department of Health that there was a problem, surgeons at all levels are telling us that not only is patient safety worse than it was before the directive, but their work and home lives are poorer for it. The new government have indicated they share our concerns, but there is not a moment to lose in implementing a better system which would enable surgeons to work in teams, with fewer handovers and with the backup of senior colleagues.”

Charlie Giddings President of the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) said: "The survey shows that 12 months after the full implementation of the EWTR there has been little progress with improvements to quality of training or to the quality of life of trainees and the subsequent impact on patient safety. High quality training will produce the high quality surgeons of tomorrow that patients expect and deserve. New innovative solutions are required rather than the minor short-term tweaks that artificially produce compliance at the expense of training and patient care, which Trusts have attempted so far. ASiT looks forward to working with the new government to maintain the high quality of surgical practice that the UK is renowned for and that our patients deserve."


There was also a BBC Report dated 6 September 2010 with regard to young doctors leaving the NHS:
Quote:
The British Medical Association said while for many the end of the first two years - known as the foundation course - may represent a natural break, the demands being placed on junior doctors could still be playing a role.

They believe shifts have become more demanding because of the EU working time directive which was introduced into the NHS last summer and limits the working week to 48 hours.

It ended the era of junior doctors working day and night shifts to staff wards, but according to the union has led to those on shift being stretched much further and thus unable to spend time in areas where they want to specialise.

Dr Shree Datta, chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee, said: "Understaffing makes our work much more intense and does not go unnoticed by our patients."


Bikerman wrote:
In other words you are talking nonsense.
Maybe not? If you bring me materials from the BMJ, the BMA or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, that type of organisation, then "yes" you have a very good point, but what I described is REAL.
Bikerman
Dean, as I said you haven't a clue what you are on about. You don't even know the difference between a GP and a Jr Hospital Doctor. You previously said that doctors are badly paid - so I supply the ACTUAL pay information which shows you are lying. You then say they are stressed out and leaving in droves. So I supply the ACTUAL working hours directly from the NHS which show you are full of it. Now you supply a document which, if you actually understood it, shows that you are wrong. The Royal College of Surgeons document you quote is complaining BECAUSE junior doctors are NOT working 90-120 hours a week. You are so ignorant you either didn't read or didn't understand the documents YOU were supplying.

Traditionally Junior hospital doctors worked 90-100 hours per week with a sleep when they can grab one during their first year in training. That is how it has always been done and the Senior Consultants wanted it to stay like that - largely because it means THEY don't have to be on duty much (though they use the excuse that the juniors need this high pressure to be trained properly).
The Government rightly called them out on it and introduced new contracts which forbade such long hours. The Royal College of Surgeons (ie the trade body for most of the senior consultants) have been bitching about it ever since. The article you quote is bitching because senior consultants are being asked to do some work. Traditionally they used to work a couple of mornings in the NHS and then trot off to the private clinics and consulting rooms and earn megabucks from private practice. The Government actually had the cheek to ask them to work 18 hours a week in the NHS in return for the hundred thousand a year thery pay them...what cheek...how terrible for them...they can now only fit in three sessions of private practice in a normal 38 hour week and their earnings have plummetted below quarter of a million in some cases...real hardship.

You would know this if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about but you don't. First you quote the Daily Mail, then you make-up facts about hours and pay, now you quote the trade associations of disgruntled employees as fact and have the cheek to reject the actual authoratitive data. There isn't a single hard fact in anything you have quoted - not a single fact. No hours, no pay, no nothing. It is just rich doctors whining.

The data I supplied on doctors pay and conditions is from the source - ie the people responsible for paying the doctors and monitoring the working conditions.. It is not in question.

You are ignorant about the NHS, and if it wasn't for the fact that people might believe your rubbish I wouldn't even dignify your ramblings with a response.
deanhills
@Bikerman. Are you a medical practitioner? Are you an expert on medical practitioners? Or are you just grabbing stats from the Internet? Do UK medical practioners agree with those stats? That is why I have repeated, and I am repeating it again, bring me evidence from the BMA or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and then I will agree with you. Otherwise I stand by what I said. Medical practioners are leaving the UK because it is stressful to work there, they can make more money elsewhere, they are unhappy with the working conditions. Too few doctors for too many patients. Including a long list of things they are unhappy with. That is REAL!!!! Believe it or not.
Bikerman
One of my sisters is a Senior Health Visitor with the NHS and my other sister is a Speech Therapist with the NHS so, yes, I do know a bit about the health service in my country. You don't. You sit in the middle east and invent facts about things you know absolutely nothing about - and you expect people to believe them because you say so.
jwellsy
I doubt it has all been written yet. They passed a what 2600 page framework that wasn't read and that they had to pass to find out what's in it. Last I heard they were up to ~4,800 pages (and still increasing) of rules.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
One of my sisters is a Senior Health Visitor with the NHS and my other sister is a Speech Therapist with the NHS so, yes, I do know a bit about the health service in my country. You don't. You sit in the middle east and invent facts about things you know absolutely nothing about - and you expect people to believe them because you say so.
As I said, you are a clown.
Perhaps you're unaware that the Middle East consists of more than camels and sand dunes. There is a thriving medical profession that is made up of a very large population of UK expat doctors. Those who prefer not to work in the UK, but have to keep their licenses up in the UK as well as their Board Certification in order to work in the Middle East. And "no", I do not invent facts.

jwellsy wrote:
I doubt it has all been written yet. They passed a what 2600 page framework that wasn't read and that they had to pass to find out what's in it. Last I heard they were up to ~4,800 pages (and still increasing) of rules.
Wow! 4,800 pages. How can they continue adding pages when the Bill has already been passed? Shocked
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
One of my sisters is a Senior Health Visitor with the NHS and my other sister is a Speech Therapist with the NHS so, yes, I do know a bit about the health service in my country. You don't. You sit in the middle east and invent facts about things you know absolutely nothing about - and you expect people to believe them because you say so.
As I said, you are a clown.
Perhaps you're unaware that the Middle East consists of more than camels and sand dunes. There is a thriving medical profession that is made up of a very large population of UK expat doctors. Those who prefer not to work in the UK, but have to keep their licenses up in the UK as well as their Board Certification in order to work in the Middle East. And "no", I do not invent facts.
You invent facts all the time. Lets look at an example:
Deanhills wrote:
the medical profession in the UK is probably one of the most painful, unrewarding, stressful and backbiting ones to survive in as a medical professional. It is full of bureaucracy and paperwork, and that to me means over-regulated by Government. Doctors are basically working for the Government with some small change for themselves.
Completely unsupported and actually complete rubbish as is shown by the actual figures. £108,000 per year is not 'small change' or 'unrewarding'. It is good money. Our GPs are amongst the best paid in Europe and are certainly NOT leaving the profession in droves.
You spout this garbage as though you actually knew what you were talking about, when in fact you don't even know the very basics of how the NHS functions.

As for there being UK doctors in the middle east...so what? Obviously you can earn more money in the middle-east and some people choose to do so. That says nothing about the quality of the NHS, it just says that oil-rich states can afford to pay more. There are also a fair few American doctors in the middle-east so by your 'logic' that must mean the US system is crap as well.

As I said, you are a clown who knows nothing about the subject.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
As I said, you are a clown who knows nothing about the subject.
I have to wonder why you are writing all these lengthy and wordy responses to my postings, as well as repeating the exact same insults when you regard my postings so inferior? Wouldn't one response have sufficed? Read through all your responses to me, and count the words that are personal judgments, accusations and insults, and how much fact is really in all of those responses? You're even repeating the same insults as well. For someone who prides himself on being very scientific and factual, there seems to be a huge anomaly here!
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

So previously you had a system that cost about twice as much, per capita, as comparable systems in the developed world, didn't actually cover about 16% of the population, under-covered about 30%, was responsible for bankrupting between quarter and half a million people a year, and had some of the worst outcomes in the western world in terms of performance indicators...

Well, this new system will make more people insured...

But it probably won't improve performance indicators much.
And it certainly won't make it less expensive, quite the opposite likely, it will instead just change who pays for it in some instances.

So, my prediction:
Uncovered- sharply down.
Performance - Mostly the same, some aspects will get worse, some better.
Cost per capita- Accelerating the rise in costs even more, though changing who pays that cost.
deanhills
I went to see a dermatologist today in a Private Medical Hospital here in the UAE. And while I was waiting my turn, I was thinking of this thread. The UAE only recently made it a requirement for every person, locals as well as ex-pats to have medical insurance. This medical insurance is provided by our employers. One thing that we have never talked about is the amazing chaos that happened just after they started with this coverage with the forms that have to be completed by the Hospitals in order to be paid by the insurance companies. For example in the beginning (and with certain Hospitals this is still the case), certain Hospitals opted to be contracted out of certain of the insurance cards. They have their own preferred card, and if yours is different, they insist that you pay up front first, and imagine if that was a medical procedure of 1000US and that procedure was a case of emergency, where would you find that money on the spot. This is still the case with that Hospital. Those contracted-out Hospitals regrettably are also the ones who have the best specialist care and specialist procedures.

All of the Hospitals would have to completely outfit themselves with the paperwork procedures. So here is how it went today. I don't mind to line up, as I really feel grateful that I do have this insurance, so since I had already previously registered with the Hospital, they had put a little sticky on my Insurance Card with my File Number on it, and once it was my turn they were able to use that card, make a copy, and then extract my file. Took about an hour of waiting until I finally got to the doctor, which is excellent by usual standards. I felt quite lucky today. So when I got into the doctor's office, the doctor had a "nurse" sitting next to him, her whole focus was attending to all of the paperwork. Her mind was so much on the paperwork, that she clean forgot to take the usual stuff like blood pressure, weight, and all the rest that is usually done. But her paperwork was excellent. There were probably about four or five sets of forms that she was working on, just for me, all in triplicate. Her and the dermatologist were working like partners in front of me, as he had to complete large portions of those forms as well, and sign them. At the same time he was attending to me. Sort of perfected to an art. They are working through a production line. I needed to pay an administration fee for all of that, but that was about the equivalent of 15US Dollars and did not worry me at all. The prescription form was also in triplicate. I then had to take that to the Hospital Pharmacy, that also had a huge line up of people waiting on their prescriptions. Some of the items on my prescription were not covered by my insurance, so had to pay for that in cash. Probably come to about 50US. Lots of paperwork there as well. The prescription form copies got separated, I got one copy. And then there were two sets of receipts that were generated for the prescription. That took about an hour in total. Good going as well.

I am happy with the service, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is plenty of administration that Hospitals will have to contend with in the United States, and it is going to drive their medical personnel quite crazy, especially the medical doctors who would have to verify all of the procedures. Hospitals will have to have very good partnership with the Federal Insurance Branches to ensure that they get paid as soon as they can. They will need to be able to work with huge production lines, and have all the handling of the paperwork sorted out. I can imagine there will be Hospitals in the United States who may opt to be paid in cash so that patients would need to claim it back later. I know that if I would get into a great emergency over here, and need to be admitted to a Hospital that wants me to pay upfront cash that I would be in real trouble financially. Also, looking at what has happened to colleagues of mine, claiming your money back is quite a stressful situation. Getting the doctor at the Hospital to fill those forms in after the fact, and then getting the Medical Insurance to reimburse after the fact, as usually they resist wanting to pay back when it does not go through a production line directly from the Hospital, and in the end it is a major negotiation to get it sorted out. Especially when that person is sick it can be a stressful experience.

Having the insurance for all is great of course, but thinking that it is going to change into something that has been working for many years like in Canada, maybe a bit oversimplistic. Watching all those forms today was quite entertaining and intriguing at the same time.
jwellsy
It's also interesting that the mid term election season is in full swing and I have not seen a single ad that the candidate is proud of passing the unpopular B.O.'s socialist health care agenda.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As I said, you are a clown who knows nothing about the subject.
I have to wonder why you are writing all these lengthy and wordy responses to my postings, as well as repeating the exact same insults when you regard my postings so inferior? Wouldn't one response have sufficed? Read through all your responses to me, and count the words that are personal judgments, accusations and insults, and how much fact is really in all of those responses? You're even repeating the same insults as well. For someone who prides himself on being very scientific and factual, there seems to be a huge anomaly here!

I respond because your lies may be read by people who actually think they might be true. One response would suffice if you stopped repeating the lies, but since you don't then each repetition will get a response.
If you find it insulting to have lies pointed out then the solution is simple. Don't lie.
As for the number of insults and accusations.
I have said repeatedly you are ignorant of the NHS - that isn't an accusation, it is fact.
I have said you lie - and then demonstrated in detail that the statement is true.
The only personal comment I can find that isn't factual is that you are a clown. I'll withdraw that.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As I said, you are a clown who knows nothing about the subject.
I have to wonder why you are writing all these lengthy and wordy responses to my postings, as well as repeating the exact same insults when you regard my postings so inferior? Wouldn't one response have sufficed? Read through all your responses to me, and count the words that are personal judgments, accusations and insults, and how much fact is really in all of those responses? You're even repeating the same insults as well. For someone who prides himself on being very scientific and factual, there seems to be a huge anomaly here!

I respond because your lies may be read by people who actually think they might be true. One response would suffice if you stopped repeating the lies, but since you don't then each repetition will get a response.
If you find it insulting to have lies pointed out then the solution is simple. Don't lie.
As for the number of insults and accusations.
I have said repeatedly you are ignorant of the NHS - that isn't an accusation, it is fact.
I have said you lie - and then demonstrated in detail that the statement is true.
The only personal comment I can find that isn't factual is that you are a clown. I'll withdraw that.
I'm almost certain that you are underestimating other posters' ability to recognize what you were doing with your posting? Repeating exactly the same "lie" accusation for the whole long length of your posting, is almost like the proverbial lady protesting too much? There are many people who are highly critical of the NHS. If you like the NHS, great for you. However, if you start to list all of its attributes, then expect it to be challenged as well.
Bikerman
It isn't a case of 'liking' the NHS. It is a case of making accurate statements about it.
Your statements were simply wrong. Since you refuse to even acknowledge that then I'll keep pointing it out when you keep repeating them.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
It isn't a case of 'liking' the NHS. It is a case of making accurate statements about it.
Your statements were simply wrong. Since you refuse to even acknowledge that then I'll keep pointing it out when you keep repeating them.
My statements were based on first-hand information of medical practitioners from England and Scotland who are working and living in the UAE. They are highly critical of working conditions and of the NHS. They refer to an awesome bureaucracy, political environment that is almost impossible to breathe in, work space that is cramped and many other limitations. They are in the UAE because they feel stifled in the UK. They also have good things to say about the NHS, as all Brits do, as it does provide medical coverage for everyone, BUT they would be very careful about what medical services they would use for themselves and their families in the UK, knowing the system as well as they do. Medical procedures that are more specialized in nature they may prefer to arrange in other countries, as they do not trust the system 100%. I'm talking about very highly qualified individuals. Not GPs. Individuals who come from your higher hierarchy. They would also be individuals who would not voice their criticism publicly. They would always say the absolute correct thing in public. That is why they are in the UAE as well. They don't fight the system. They just simply find a better situation for themselves and excel in it as well. As well as keep up their basic credentials and connections with the UK. Such as their Board Certifications and Licenses to practice, which are basic requirements for ex-pat practitioners in the UAE to have at any rate. As well as a set level of CME accreditation points depending which specialist area they are practicing in.
Bikerman
Anedotal evidence is no evidence at all.
What you ACTUALLY said was
Quote:
the medical profession in the UK is probably one of the most painful, unrewarding, stressful and backbiting ones to survive in as a medical professional. It is full of bureaucracy and paperwork, and that to me means over-regulated by Government. Doctors are basically working for the Government with some small change for themselves.

And that was, and is, a lie.
jmi256
Dean Hills wrote:
I'm almost certain that you are underestimating other posters' ability to recognize what you were doing with your posting? Repeating exactly the same "lie" accusation for the whole long length of your posting, is almost like the proverbial lady protesting too much?

Yeah, it’s pretty transparent. And more of the same pattern we see here often, so it has pretty much lost any effectiveness the poster thinks it may have. So long story short: Don’t sweat it.




Bikerman wrote:
Anedotal evidence is no evidence at all.

It’s interesting that you say that because you also claim to know what you’re talking about simply because you’re related to someone in the industry. I didn’t realize knowledge transferred like that. /sarcasm. But I will give you that most likely you know more about issues germaine to your own country, so you probably know more about the NHS than I do. Of course that does not mean you are an expert or even well informed, for that matter, but just that you have an opinion flavored by your own experience..

Bikerman wrote:
One of my sisters is a Senior Health Visitor with the NHS and my other sister is a Speech Therapist with the NHS so, yes, I do know a bit about the health service in my country.






Despite the sarcasm my intention isn’t to get in the middle of this back and forth that honestly would be better suited for PMs, but since no moderator is going to try to police the personal insults and name calling I’ll just ignore those and instead focus on a trend that I have seen from proponents of the British NHS, who then in turn have been vocal advocates for the extension of a similar system in the US even though the US system was better. Over the years there have been tons of reports about long waiting lists, doctor and nurses shortages, lack of needed services, etc concerning the NHS, but proponents seem to turn a blind eye to those reports (from their own country mind you, not outside criticism), even turning to the tone and tactics we’ve seen in this thread and others to squash any criticism. I have my own theory as to why these people behave the way they do, but instead of turning this into a discussion about my own opinion (and the inevitable attack that will follow), here are some reports that outline some of the many problems faced by the NHS. And thanks to Obama and the Democrats, Americans can look forward to treatment that is below the high quality levels they have been enjoying. The "professional left," as Obama calls them, were able to force Obamacare down everyone’s throats, but hopefully we’ll be able to vote those who pushed Obamacare out and vote in some people who will repeal the disaster.


NHS follows rules that 'guarantee failure', says Civitas
The National Health Service follows every known rule that guarantees failure in the business world, a new report claims.
Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5932832/NHS-follows-rules-that-guarantees-failure-says-Civitas.html


NHS facing rota shortage of 3,000 junior doctors
The NHS hospital staffing rotas are facing a shortage of more than 3,000 junior doctors as a result of a recruitment shake-up, raising concerns that patient care will suffer.
Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6207680/NHS-facing-rota-shortage-of-3000-junior-doctors.html


Nursing crisis forces baby unit closures
Source = http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/28/health.medicineandhealth


Britain shamed by NHS death rates
Waiting lists and shortage of doctors blamed for grim mortality figures
Source = http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/07/health.nhs
Bikerman
Quote:
It’s interesting that you say that because you also claim to know what you’re talking about simply because you’re related to someone in the industry.
No I don't. The fact that my sisters work in the NHS is simply one source of information. I am a regular user - that is a second. I have done quite a bit of reading and reseach (NOT trawling newspaper headlines) - that is a third.
I don't rely on that - I have included relevant links for any claims I have made, from the most authorititive body for each - unlike others, who provide anecdote and newspaper headlines...

Any health care system has critics and it is easy to download critical stories from the press. I could do the same for the US - but it is trivially easy so I leave that to others.
That is why anecdotal evidence is worthless - it tells you nothing about which system is better than another. If you want that sort of information then you go to the bodies who compile it.
If you want to compare the UK and US healthcare systems then the WHO is the place to go because that is what they do - compare health systems.
The WHO did a full comparison of all the healthcare systems in the world in 2000. The results show the UK way above the US.*

Neither do I advocate ANY system for the US. I merely point out the lies that are told by those who DO when they talk about the UK system.

* WHO 2000 Ranking of healthcare systems in the world
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Dean Hills wrote:
I'm almost certain that you are underestimating other posters' ability to recognize what you were doing with your posting? Repeating exactly the same "lie" accusation for the whole long length of your posting, is almost like the proverbial lady protesting too much?

Yeah, it’s pretty transparent. And more of the same pattern we see here often, so it has pretty much lost any effectiveness the poster thinks it may have. So long story short: Don’t sweat it.

Oh you poor things, crying about getting called on your lies. Why don't you form a support group or something?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Anedotal evidence is no evidence at all.

Jung disagrees... as do I.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof... But it IS evidence.

Though I will say this: getting the opinions of expat doctors will give you a rather biased source of information... selection bias; nothing against the individuals.
Say, 5% of doctors are screwed by that system. Most of the ones that leave the country will be within that 5%, so if you interview expats, they're much more likely to have negative views than ones who stayed put.
Bikerman
Indeed. Actually I do agree - I should have been clearer. What I meant was that anecdotal evidence of the type supplied is not really very good evidence in this case - largely for the reason you cite (selection bias).
Voodoocat
It seems that Democrats (you know, the self proclaimed party of the working class) are already kowtowing to Big Business when it comes to health care.
Quote:
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

If Obamacare is so wonderful, then why exempt certain large companies from adhering to it?

Oh yeah, do you remember Obama promising that if you already had healthcare you would be not affected by this legislation? It turns out that was just another lie:

Quote:
"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."


Aren't you glad that you believed Pelosi when she said that you should not read the bill before passing it? After all, once the bill was passsed, there is plenty of time to read it.

And weep.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
It seems that Democrats (you know, the self proclaimed party of the working class) are already kowtowing to Big Business when it comes to health care.
Quote:
McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

If Obamacare is so wonderful, then why exempt certain large companies from adhering to it?

Oh yeah, do you remember Obama promising that if you already had healthcare you would be not affected by this legislation? It turns out that was just another lie:

Quote:
"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."


Aren't you glad that you believed Pelosi when she said that you should not read the bill before passing it? After all, once the bill was passsed, there is plenty of time to read it.

And weep.


Doocat, dry your eyes and look again. You totally misread the article and have taken the opposite meaning from it. In fact, these waivers are in place precisely so employees will NOT lose whatever insurance they already have.

Take a closer look at these paragraphs together, and notice the parts in bold:

Quote:
The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."
...
The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.


These waivers PREVENT people from losing the insurance they already have, not the opposite. It was a way to encourage companies NOT to drop people's insurance (and blame the health care reform bill). So it was actually a very responsible measure, a bit a good management. It is actually a case of Pelosi, Obama etc KEEPING THEIR PROMISE that no one would lose their health insurance due to the health care reform. A month ago was this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html
Quote:

Sept. 30 2010
McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.


And please tell me, how did you come across this article, and what encouraged you to take the opposite meaning from it? I ask because I notice a lot of talk radio hosts doing this kind of thing, spreading disinformation and twisting the meaning of news articles to mean the exact opposite.

edited to fix links
deanhills
OK then Obama and Pelosi did those select group of businesses a good deed, but now I'm confused Handfleisch. What about all the other businesses? Why were those singled and how about all the other businesses in the US? Surely all employers need a transition period to sort through existing medical insurance schemes, not only those select few? What makes them so much more special then all of the others? Of are there some quid per pro deals that we don't know about?
Voodoocat
Quote:
it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.


So, Obamacare starts to take effect, many large corporations realize that some of the provisions are too costly to the company so they threaten to drop healthcare coverage. Obama and the Democrats once again step in to save Big Business by waiving expensive healthcare requirements for some, but not all companies.

Two problems: Obama promised that his healthcare initiative would not change your current coverage, but it obviously did. Second, this certainly looks like Democrats kowtowing to Big Business once again. Notice that they did not exempt all businesses from the extra cost, just some. If it is a bad idea for Walmart, why is it a good idea for a smaller business?
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:
why is it a good idea for a smaller business?


Because the smaller businesses don't have dedicated lobbyists, of course.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Because the smaller businesses don't have dedicated lobbyists, of course.


Very Happy
arjeine06
Health issue is the one that the president giving a lot of his attention. Having free medical consultations in every poor town of the country will do to. It was already a great contribution for the country and to his beloved people.
My Medical Blog[url=http://www.articlecycle.com/]TV Show/url]
Voodoocat
My open enrollment period for health insurance just started. My insurance premium has increased by 20% while my copay has increased 33%. These are higher increases than I have ever had.

I think I would prefer to go back to the old system.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
My open enrollment period for health insurance just started. My insurance premium has increased by 20% while my copay has increased 33%. These are higher increases than I have ever had.

I think I would prefer to go back to the old system.
Is this a general trend in the whole of the United States, and is this due to the new Medical Insurance system? Or general "bad economy" economic reasons? Why do you think was it necessary for your insurance to be increased by such a high percentage?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Why do you think was it necessary for your insurance to be increased by such a high percentage?

The primary reason is that the insurance company wants to make money.

They'll either give the health care bill or the economy as an excuse -- and these reasons may validly raise the cost of giving you health insurance... or they may not. Either way, they'll use it to raise rates.


Ingenious really... How to provide health insurance to all without raising taxes to pay for it?
Why, just require that insurance companies do so, and allow them to raise the rates on most people.
Then, the healthy majority of people will still be paying for it, only they'll be paying through their insurance bills, not through their taxes.
(Though, if you can't decline to buy the insurance, you might make an argument for calling the insurance premium a tax, since in both cases the government is requiring you to pay money.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Ingenious really... How to provide health insurance to all without raising taxes to pay for it? Why, just require that insurance companies do so, and allow them to raise the rates on most people.
Then, the healthy majority of people will still be paying for it, only they'll be paying through their insurance bills, not through their taxes.
(Though, if you can't decline to buy the insurance, you might make an argument for calling the insurance premium a tax, since in both cases the government is requiring you to pay money.)

Brilliant actually! Real sneaky system too. Wonder where all the money is going to come from to pay the insurance however?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Wonder where all the money is going to come from to pay the insurance however?

From every individual and business required to buy it.
Except, of course, those who get waivers for it.
Alaskacameradude
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Wonder where all the money is going to come from to pay the insurance however?

From every individual and business required to buy it.
Except, of course, those who get waivers for it.


Ding ding ding......as I've said before, there is a whole new batch of 'customers' here for
the health insurance industry......all the young people who would normally not buy health
insurance are now forced to. I wish I could get the government to 'force' people to buy
my services. But all sarcasm aside, that is exactly how it works.....which is how come
Obamacare itself TOTALLY depends on the mandatory insurance! It won't fiscally stand up
if they can't force everyone to buy insurance! That's why the lawsuits about 'government
enforced' buying of healthcare are such a big deal. If for some reason, a court was to strike
down that part of it......the whole thing would collapse.
deanhills
@Alaskacameradude. That sounds like socialism to me. Sort of not completely compatible with capitalism, but who knows, with such a huge debt, maybe things are changing in the country? Or do you think there may be a revolt in the offing, or better yet, people will find loopholes so that they won't have to buy insurance if they don't really want it? Smile
Alaskacameradude
Quote:

@Alaskacameradude. That sounds like socialism to me. Sort of not completely compatible with capitalism, but who knows, with such a huge debt, maybe things are changing in the country? Or do you think there may be a revolt in the offing, or better yet, people will find loopholes so that they won't have to buy insurance if they don't really want it?


Yes and yes. In other words, I think yes there is a revolt in the offing (I could be wrong,
but see today's election results for confirmation) and yes I think people will find loopholes.

First, the majority of American people STILL do not support Obamacare.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

As can be expected, Republicans strongly support repealing it and Democrats strongly oppose repealing
it. However, 70% of independant voters want to repeal it. Overall, 58% want to repeal it while
36% do not want to repeal it. I call that a revolt in the offing.....but we will see soon.

Second, as I have talked about before, if they can't deny you for preexisting conditions, why in
the world, would people not choose to just pay the fine (which is cheaper than buying the insurance)
and then, right before they need to make a health care purchase, buy insurance which would
cover them.
"Oops, I got in a car accident" or "oops, my kid fell and broke his leg....better go buy 'insurance'.

As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and
look at the other side of issues. Some would say it is socialism, while others would call it
a new 'tax'. Although, that brings up another funny issue. After promising no new taxes on
people making under $250 thousand, Obama pushed this healthcare bill. Obama and the Dems
in Congress dodged this by saying it 'wasn't really a tax but a penalty'.
However, when the feds were sued over it, and it went before a judge, Obama's guys tried to
justify it by claiming it falls under the federal governments 'power to levy taxes'.
This particular judge basically said they can't have it both ways, saying the following

"Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,”

You can read the rest of it here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/14/federal-judge-challenge-to-obamacare-mandate-can-proceed-to-trial/
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
This particular judge basically said they can't have it both ways, saying the following

"Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,”

You can read the rest of it here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/14/federal-judge-challenge-to-obamacare-mandate-can-proceed-to-trial/
Thanks for the quote and link. I did not realize that all of this has been happening. Guess what the judge said HAS to be good ammunition for repealing the legislation? I was unaware that the majority of voters wanted the legislation canned. The one project that Obama invested too much of his focus and time in turning into an achilles heel for him. As I bet when Congress starts to fight for the repeal that that is all we will be getting in the media for months to come. Can't be good for Obama's longevity in the White House.
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and look at the other side of issues. Some would say it is socialism, while others would call it a new 'tax'.
Well it just isn't socialism in any way. It is still a market system. If it were socialist then it would be state provided - that is the whole point of socialism - common ownership with public control. There is no way that the word 'socialist or socialism' can in any way be applied to the health reform in the US.
Alaskacameradude
Bikerman wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and look at the other side of issues. Some would say it is socialism, while others would call it a new 'tax'.
Well it just isn't socialism in any way. It is still a market system. If it were socialist then it would be state provided - that is the whole point of socialism - common ownership with public control. There is no way that the word 'socialist or socialism' can in any way be applied to the health reform in the US.


I am not 100% sure on that, but some would certainly point out that a 'market controlled by
the government' (where the government forces limits on what you can charge and such)
is NOT a true 'market system' and is instead closer to socialism. There are 'some' elements
of this in the new health care bill.
ocalhoun
Alaskacameradude wrote:

First, the majority of [b]'likely voters'[/i] STILL do not support Obamacare.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Fixed. (Before someone finds a contradictory poll with a different demographic.)
Incidentally, I would like to see how rasmussen determines who is likely to vote and who is not.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and look at the other side of issues. Some would say it is socialism, while others would call it a new 'tax'.
Well it just isn't socialism in any way. It is still a market system. If it were socialist then it would be state provided - that is the whole point of socialism - common ownership with public control. There is no way that the word 'socialist or socialism' can in any way be applied to the health reform in the US.


I am not 100% sure on that, but some would certainly point out that a 'market controlled by
the government' (where the government forces limits on what you can charge and such)
is NOT a true 'market system' and is instead closer to socialism. There are 'some' elements
of this in the new health care bill.

Yes, it is not fully socialist, as in 'publicly owned and controlled'... But it is closer to that, in that there is now much more public control of it.
(And also more public ownership, as medicare rolls are expanded.)
Also, it is more socialist than the previous system in that it diverts resources from those who have (health and/or the ability to pay for insurance) to those who have not (unhealthy and/or those who can't afford insurance).
Voodoocat
Oh, the irony of it all. Obama's administration has been handing out healthcare law waivers left and right, including one to the New England Healthcare Instutute. What, you ask, is the New England healthcare Institute? Maybe their mission statement will help:

Quote:
Founded in 2002, the New England Healthcare Institute – known as NEHI – is a nonprofit, independent health policy institute dedicated to transforming health care for the benefit of patients and their families.


WHAT! You mean that a non-profit organization dedicated to transforming health care for patients and their families has been issued a waiver from Obamacare? I guess Obamacare is not helping patients so much after all, eh?

Further proof the the healthcare law is an obamanation.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Oh, the irony of it all. Obama's administration has been handing out healthcare law waivers left and right, including one to the New England Healthcare Instutute.
You're right Voodoocat, if so many waivers have to be made, that already indicates complete bias, as who gets to get the waiver, how are those decisions arrive at? Too much bureaucracy and decisions like these just give me a feeling of socialism. That has to be incompatible with capitalism?
lrj945
Guess what the judge said HAS to be good ammunition for repealing the legislation? I was unaware that the majority of voters wanted the legislation canned.As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and
look at the other side of issues.

I wish I could get the government to 'force' people to buy
my services. But all sarcasm aside, that is exactly how it works.....which is how come
Obamacare itself TOTALLY depends on the mandatory insurance!
Hello_World
How can it possibly be 'socialism'? Unless you consider Australia and UK socialist, as well as numerous progressive Europeean countries...

The only difference is that ours is universal health care and Obamas is only a half arsed one. Still, it appears a better plan than the one before it.

And no. I have never heard of any Australian needing to go overseas to get superior treatment. Except maybe plastic surgery, (which isn't covered unless you were involved in a fire or something).

And yes, there are some exclusions, like dental.

Funny how everyone who HAS universal health care is at a complete loss as to why the US doesn't want universal health care.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Funny how everyone who HAS universal health care is at a complete loss as to why the US doesn't want universal health care.
I think that is not completely correct. Almost everyone in the US wants universal health care; the fight is not whether to do it, but how to do it right.
watersoul
...and as long as a nation continues to argue over 'socialist' dangers of tax funded healthcare, many millions today face daily pain due to being unable to afford medication.
It is absolutely shameful that an advanced society will spend billions on war related industry, yet frequently see its own poor citizens to go bankrupt over essential health costs.

I hope the decision makers find this seemingly elusive way to 'do it right' one day.
Hello_World
Quote:
..and as long as a nation continues to argue over 'socialist' dangers of tax funded healthcare, many millions today face daily pain due to being unable to afford medication.
It is absolutely shameful that an advanced society will spend billions on war related industry, yet frequently see its own poor citizens to go bankrupt over essential health costs.


I can't agree more.

Quote:
the fight is not whether to do it, but how to do it right.


I agree, it is important to get it right. But I understood that universal health care is not even on the table...

The US is too proud to look to other strong and capable nations and accept that there are some things we do better.

There are many examples that the US could learn from.
handfleisch
lrj945 wrote:
Guess what the judge said HAS to be good ammunition for repealing the legislation? I was unaware that the majority of voters wanted the legislation canned.As for if it is socialism or not, I have my own opinion on that, but I at least TRY to be fair and
look at the other side of issues.

I wish I could get the government to 'force' people to buy
my services. But all sarcasm aside, that is exactly how it works.....which is how come
Obamacare itself TOTALLY depends on the mandatory insurance!


This woman, like countless other Americans, was saved by "Obamacare". What do you say to her?

(I excerpted just parts, you should read the whole thing)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206,0,6794828.story
Quote:
'Obamacare' to the rescue
A woman who felt President Obama had let the middle class down has changed her mind.



I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background.

I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church.

We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment.

...

Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it. It's part of President Obama's healthcare plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies.) It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver — perhaps literally.

Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan. I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope." I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.

So this is my public apology. I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on. I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us. I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say "ObamaCares."
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
I agree, it is important to get it right. But I understood that universal health care is not even on the table...

The US is too proud to look to other strong and capable nations and accept that there are some things we do better.

There are many examples that the US could learn from.
You make it sound so simple. I'd have thought if it had been as easy as that, and as logical, that the US would have opted for a universal medical care system a very long time ago. The US has more than 312 million citizens in 50 states and with a high percentage of older people hence a large burden of medical care (refer map below of age of world populations). Compared with Canada's 33 million citizens, the UK around 63 million and Australia 22 million. Canada, the UK and Australia together have a fraction over a third of the total population of the US. The infrastructure and medical services of the US are also completely different from those in Canada, UK and Australia. I'm not sure one can superimpose a template of the countries with universal medical care systems on the US just like that.

Source of Map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_age.png

Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
some ideas
A few things on my mind..
National Health Care in Socialist Stimulus Bill
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
US Universal Health Care debate
Ethics/Morality of Health Care
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
Health Care bill
Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Former NHS director dies after operation is cancelled
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.