"OK"..you retire. But what about Health Care if your under 65???

[brennaman]

 

Why ever do you go to THAT clinic? Or would it be discourteous (and un-Canadian) to wonder if you are one of those who benefit from the sliding scale?

 

Maybe the real point is that the US system seems to be a mess, with unpredictable winners and losers, mostly losers except for the insurance companies and their lobbyists.

 

The first step in fixing US health care is to have some strong rules about election campaign financing and maybe have it come from public funds (which makes it more like elections in Canada). And have election activities largely by volunteers (ahem, ahem) going door to door instead of advertizing moneyball. What do you think of that?

 

Ben

I think Peter hates our system more than anyone on the board. (Except maybe Ken) And you don't have to use it.

 

Umm, just a bit personal there, eh?

 

Ben

 

Maybe a little, you just appear to have an axe to gring against the US. Gets old.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

[quote=tallman

The first step in fixing US health care is to have some strong rules about election campaign financing and maybe have it come from public funds (which makes it more like elections in Canada). And have election activities largely by volunteers (ahem, ahem) going door to door instead of advertizing moneyball. What do you think of that?

 

Ben

 

Time is money. What's a bigger donation for a person that makes $52 grand a year:

 

A) $1000

B) A week volunteering.

[Bob Palin]

Generally speaking, when a healthcare provider agrees to deal with an insurance company or Medicare, they also agree to accept the reimbursement rates. Meaning they can't charge the patient more than that. The write off of the balance doesn't reduce their taxes, it just reduces the amount they can collect.

 

Clearly, unless a healthcare provider goes broke, it must collect the cost of uncompensated care from someone, so that cost has to be included in the amount collected from insurance plans, Medicare, and private pay somehow.

 

Not this clinic or my doctors as far as I know, but they were caught red-handed by a customer (known to us) doing the overcharge/can't collect/write-off scam. Exactly how it worked I have forgotten - but can't you actually deduct bad debts from your taxes? They most certainly can and do charge more than the insurance will pay, you have to sign a form saying that they can do that and that you are responsible for anything the insurance company won't cover. No sign, no treatment.

[Dave McReynolds]

Generally speaking, when a healthcare provider agrees to deal with an insurance company or Medicare, they also agree to accept the reimbursement rates. Meaning they can't charge the patient more than that. The write off of the balance doesn't reduce their taxes, it just reduces the amount they can collect.

 

Clearly, unless a healthcare provider goes broke, it must collect the cost of uncompensated care from someone, so that cost has to be included in the amount collected from insurance plans, Medicare, and private pay somehow.

 

Not this clinic or my doctors as far as I know, but they were caught red-handed by a customer (known to us) doing the overcharge/can't collect/write-off scam. Exactly how it worked I have forgotten - but can't you actually deduct bad debts from your taxes? They most certainly can and do charge more than the insurance will pay, you have to sign a form saying that they can do that and that you are responsible for anything the insurance company won't cover. No sign, no treatment.

 

I believe health care providers can negotiate contracts with insurance companies that allow them to charge more than the insurance policy will reimburse, provided the patient agrees to pay the additional charges beforehand. Not the case with Medicare, so far as I am aware. If a health care provider agrees to accept Medicare patients at all, then they must agree to provide services under the agreed Medicare reimbursement rate.

 

Most, if not all, health care providers who are not tax exempt report their income for tax purposes using the cash method of accounting. This means they are taxable on what they collect, and deduct what they pay (as opposed to reporting income on what they bill, and deducting what they have a liability to pay under the accrual method). Since they only report as income what they collect, they don't report bad debts on their tax returns; bad debts sort of get washed out in the process of collecting the amounts they have billed.

[Peter Parts]

 

Why ever do you go to THAT clinic? Or would it be discourteous (and un-Canadian) to wonder if you are one of those who benefit from the sliding scale?

 

Maybe the real point is that the US system seems to be a mess, with unpredictable winners and losers, mostly losers except for the insurance companies and their lobbyists.

 

The first step in fixing US health care is to have some strong rules about election campaign financing and maybe have it come from public funds (which makes it more like elections in Canada). And have election activities largely by volunteers (ahem, ahem) going door to door instead of advertizing moneyball. What do you think of that?

 

Ben

I think Peter hates our system more than anyone on the board. (Except maybe Ken) And you don't have to use it.

 

Umm, just a bit personal there, eh?

 

Ben

 

Maybe a little, you just appear to have an axe to gring against the US. Gets old.

 

 

 

The spirit of Joe McCarthy is alive!

 

Gosh, have I acted unAmerican?

 

B.

 

[philbytx]

When we "dropped out" 7 years ago, Deb and I opened a HDHP/HSA through BCBS. I go on Medicare July 1st this year and she picked up a HDHP/HSA for herself thru BCBS. As far as cost goes, she is 57 and its $303 per month for her. You self insure for the first 5k.

[brennaman]

 

Why ever do you go to THAT clinic? Or would it be discourteous (and un-Canadian) to wonder if you are one of those who benefit from the sliding scale?

 

Maybe the real point is that the US system seems to be a mess, with unpredictable winners and losers, mostly losers except for the insurance companies and their lobbyists.

 

The first step in fixing US health care is to have some strong rules about election campaign financing and maybe have it come from public funds (which makes it more like elections in Canada). And have election activities largely by volunteers (ahem, ahem) going door to door instead of advertizing moneyball. What do you think of that?

 

Ben

I think Peter hates our system more than anyone on the board. (Except maybe Ken) And you don't have to use it.

 

Umm, just a bit personal there, eh?

 

Ben

 

Maybe a little, you just appear to have an axe to gring against the US. Gets old.

 

 

 

The spirit of Joe McCarthy is alive!

 

Gosh, have I acted unAmerican?

 

B.

 

I would have a little more respect of your opinion if you were a US citizen. I would understand your beef with our system. But you decided to make this thread (and any other chance you get) your personal crusade on what you dislike about the states. How about you start your own thread about what you hate about the US. I am sure there would be some that would love that thread.

[Peter Parts]

I think Peter hates our system more than anyone on the board. (Except maybe Ken) And you don't have to use it.

 

Umm, just a bit personal there, eh?

 

Ben

 

Maybe a little, you just appear to have an axe to gring against the US. Gets old.

 

 

 

The spirit of Joe McCarthy is alive!

 

Gosh, have I acted unAmerican?

 

B.

 

I would have a little more respect of your opinion if you were a US citizen. I would understand your beef with our system. But you decided to make this thread (and any other chance you get) your personal crusade on what you dislike about the states. How about you start your own thread about what you hate about the US. I am sure there would be some that would love that thread.

 

As it happens, I am a US citizen, files taxes, live in Florida a few months of the year, just returned from my college reunion in Chicago, and vote - like a lot of my family, kids, and friends.

 

More important, I get the New York Times (Toronto supplement) every Sunday, except in Florida where I read the Florida edition every day.

 

Does that qualify me to offer an opinion?

 

Tell me honestly, do you read a respected newspaper? Or do you get your information from Fox News?

 

Ben

[Quinn]

Time for me to stay out of this. Too nasty for my sensitive nature.

 

 

-----

 

 

[Ken H.]

As it happens, I am a US citizen,

Me too BTW. And I have indeed lived under both systems.

 

Some people confuse criticism with concern. The only reason I voice about the US health care system is because so many people are suffering as a result of it.

 

That and a rather astonishment that in a land where getting a good deal is practically a religion, so many people are so willing to accept getting such a bad deal on their health care. I’ve never understood it, probably never will.

 

[Roadwolf]

That's because, Ken, you forget the concept of American Exceptionalism, if it's not made/invented/perfected here, it ain't worth a damn.

[Dave McReynolds]

That and a rather astonishment that in a land where getting a good deal is practically a religion, so many people are so willing to accept getting such a bad deal on their health care. I’ve never understood it, probably never will.

 

I think that people who can afford good health insurance believe they have better care than they would under a national healthcare plan, so they want to keep things the way they are. Some upwardly mobile people who are headed in the direction of being able to afford good health insurance (are there still any of those left?) feel the same way. It no doubt also includes a number of healthy young people who don't need healthcare right now, and don't want to pay for it, because if they're healthy now, they're going to be healthy forever, right? One other group would be those who really can't afford good health insurance, and have no immediate prospects of being able to afford it, but are against any expansion of government, period.

 

I have to assume that the groups I mentioned, and perhaps some others I forgot, have more votes than those who need good health insurance, can't get it, and would be willing to vote for it.

[brennaman]

My last post was removed, so I am done.

[MT Wallet]

In the main I agree with Dave's take on the issue. In a previous post I made the point that government doesn't do things well. I suggested that had congress modeled the Affordable Care Act after the most efficient insurance delivery system rather than a political give away, I'd have had less trouble with it.

 

I don't want to be beholdin' to government.

[Whip]

IMHO the best way to evaluate your healthcare is after you get sick.

 

 

 

 

[tallman]

Or

 

Or

Life Expectancy where we rank behind CUBA.

 

So, we have shorter life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates, yet placate the masses by adding a couple years survival to cancer victims?

I have benefitted dramatically from our health care system through my insurance carrier, an HMO that is consistently ranked at the top nationally.

 

[John Ranalletta]

How does it make sense to increase life expectancy? The last years of an old person are usually marked with physical incapacity, senility, Alzheimers, extremely high living care costs while depleting SS funds. The object of the natural life cycle is for the old to vacate the premises in favor of the next generation. This concentration on gather all our resources to the geezer end of the generational pool is selfish and ill advised.

 

Perhaps, Medicare, retirement and SS payments should cease at 75 to insure proper turnover.

[Whip]

Or

 

Or

Life Expectancy where we rank behind CUBA.

 

So, we have shorter life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates, yet placate the masses by adding a couple years survival to cancer victims?

I have benefitted dramatically from our health care system through my insurance carrier, an HMO that is consistently ranked at the top nationally.

 

 

Apples and oranges.

 

If ya get sick you want to be in the US.

[Ken H.]

IMHO the best way to evaluate your healthcare is after you get sick.

And actually there in lies part of the rub. I on the other hand would say the best way to evaluate your health care (system) is before you, i.e. help you to not, get sick.

 

Maybe that’s the core subject / question - do you want Health Care or Illness Care?

 

[Paul Mihalka]

How does it make sense to increase life expectancy? The last years of an old person are usually marked with physical incapacity, senility, Alzheimers, extremely high living care costs while depleting SS funds. The object of the natural life cycle is for the old to vacate the premises in favor of the next generation. This concentration on gather all our resources to the geezer end of the generational pool is selfish and ill advised.

 

Perhaps, Medicare, retirement and SS payments should cease at 75 to insure proper turnover.

I can agree with some of your thinking, but disagree with some, specially your last sentence. What should be done is not cutting off services at one point, but starting them at a later point. As I work in the motorcycle business obviously I see a good number of healthy active seniors who could perfectly work and improve the GNP, but are happily retired on Social security, or even more on Military or Government pensions. Over the years it is not only the life expectancy that has increased, but the years of active productive life has increased too. I would think that no healthy person to the age of 70 should receive any kind of pension. A very hard task, but what should be considered is what medical services are provided to terminally ill people. I think there is a excessive effort to maintain the heart beating for month/years in a person who without life support would pass away. I think part of the reason for this is the medical profession's ethics, and the pursuit of profit of the service providers.

As far as making old people stop working to make jobs available for the next generation, that is nonsense, even so there are some countries who have it as a law. I understand in Spain after you receive your pension at 65, you are PROHIBITED to work for compensation. What is the solution: Make everybody stop working at 65 and kill them at 75? I don't think so...

[Whip]

IMHO the best way to evaluate your healthcare is after you get sick.

And actually there in lies part of the rub. I on the other hand would say the best way to evaluate your health care (system) is before you, i.e. help you to not, get sick.

 

Maybe that’s the core subject / question - do you want Health Care or Illness Care?

 

Good point.

 

I want great care when I need it and the best care in the world when you need it is here in the US.

 

Am I right in assuming the longevity stats take into account infant mortality and accidental death?

 

I have read that each country has it's own formula.

 

 

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Time for little fact-checking. Remember, statistics don't lie, but.....

 

All studies done with big groups and across countries needs to cook the data a bit to make it fit together and result in a meaningful result. Fair enough, if you keep that in mind when reading the study.

 

The CONCORD 2008 study compared cancer survival rates after diagnosis with "expected" survival (that is, longevity for THAT country).

 

So a country that detects a lot of cancer (such as countries that have free care) might look worse than a country where those who are the most sick (or the most poor) never get into the care system at all.

 

Further, a country with a lowish longevity scores a big hit in THAT study. Say you were diagnosed with prostate cancer and lived to be 79. In a country with a lowish longevity (the US?), that would be considered by THIS study to a success while the same guy in a country with longer longevity (many other places, eh) would look worse compared to the whole population.

 

Having said that, the CONCORD 2008 study is really the odd-man-out when it comes to rating the US system. Any country with lousy infant mortality can't be too proud of its care system.

 

BTW, getting better longevity stats isn't just keep old folks alive. It is as much about having sensible laws that keep helmets on the heads of bikers and treating diseases at every age.

 

Ben

[Whip]

Soooo....accidental deaths do count when calculating longevity.

 

 

That means violent crime deaths.

 

ODs

 

 

Yes, MC deaths and car accidents.

 

It sounds like we need to give Chicago to Canada just to even things out.

 

Oh BTW... The Concord study is not an outlier it is the norm when it comes to survival rates.

 

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20040920/us-tops-canada-in-post-heart-attack-care

 

 

Did you notice how BAD England is with cancer care. Your chances of death almost double. WOW

 

I am glad I live in the US.

 

[tallman]

Apples and oranges, really?

 

That the best response you got?

 

Life expectancy should involve health care with other variables,

just as cancer survival has many variables.

 

Infant mortality is perhaps the best indicator of how a nation values its people, IMO.

If we can't care for the 2 "patients" in a prenancy, where diagnosis is pretty easy and "detection" is early to the extent that most survive and are healthy, what good does it do to throw

care at adults?

 

Children are our future.

Any nation that doesn't embrace that fact is short sighted.

 

Health care is the total package, cradle to grave, nutrition, education, environmental concerns, clean air/water, immunization/vaccines, affordable access to diagnosis, treatment

and yes, funding research/development to cure what ails you.

 

Apples and oranges?

A part of healthy nutrition and balanced diet.

[John Ranalletta]

Children are our future.

Any nation that doesn't embrace that fact is short sighted.

Couldn't agree more; so now balance that with the fact that our welfare system promotes and provides $ incentives for the the most vulnerable to have more babies who are the least likely to prosper.

[Whip]

Sorry Tim

 

My bad

 

This thread started about a guy retiring not infant mortality rates and has gone everywhere. I have been thinking about what started this.

 

I don't think infant mortality and helmet laws are the same thing as how you are treated and what your chances of survival are when you get cancer or heart disease.

 

IMHO... That is how health care should be measured.

 

 

YMMV and I respect that.

 

It is obvious that countries with big bro health care do not care for their folks with life threatening health issues as well as we do.