Zone1 Should a bill be passed ?

[dblack]

I have never had any treatment denial in single payor healthcare and I don’t know of anyone who has.

How does that work with gender re-assignment surgery? Or breast enlargements?

 

[dblack]

Not to get away from the point in this query, but the main thing is are we getting the quality care and services paid for after we've paid big bucks into these Healthcare provider's who seem to not want to accept claims that are submitted by hospitals and doctor's offices upon service's rendered and then payment's due ????

By "health care providers", do you mean insurance companies? Or hospitals and doctors?

 

[Dragonlady]

Maybe. But the point is they're trying to solve the same problem. One insurance company, run by the government, is still an insurance company, with limited resources, and infinite demand. Despite the pie-eyed claims that health care is a "right", we can't give everyone all the healthcare that they might want or need. People will be getting "denied" with government health insurance too. The only difference is that you can't say "no".

Given that our healthcare costs are less than half of yours, and we are getting more for our money than you are, any change to the way that healthcare is paid for in the USA, would be an improvement

More than $.30 of every healthcare dollar in the USA is spent on administration. Insurance company approvals eat up a huge chunk of that $.30.

Truthfully, I've read and seen studies that there are more treatment denials from government-run health insurance.

I have never been denied treatment in my entire life and I’m 75 years old. I don’t know of anyone who has ever been denied treatment in Canada.

Americans are told so much bullshit about healthcare in other countries because they’re trying to frighten you about single payor.

 

[beagle9]

By "health care providers", do you mean insurance companies? Or hospitals and doctors?

Insurance companies... I apologize for getting the language messed up.

 

[Dragonlady]

Insurance companies... I apologize for getting the language messed up.

Insurance companies have NOTHING to do with healthcare in single payor countries. You get sick, you go to the doctor, get treated and go home to get better. We have no paperwork, no preapprovals, no denial of treatment. Doctors don't have to hire extra staff to deal with co-pays, insurance preapprovals, or billing.

Our administration costs are 7% compared to 30% in the USA. Your doctors have to hire additional staff and 3rd party billing companies to do their paperwork. Our doctors' receptionists do theirs. Some European countries have their admin costs down in the 3% range.

I have an OHIP photo ID card, which I present to the care giver and which they swipe. Their computer confirms the card is valid. The care giver confirms my address and contact details, and we're done. If I change my address, I have to notify OHIP, and every 5 years I get a new photo and a new card. That's my paperwork.

My annual co-pay is $100 for prescriptions. If my income was lower, I could even get that amount waived. I was shocked when President Biden said American seniors will be covered for prescriptions over $2000, on top of your other copays, and insurance bills.

Everybody wants health care that is good, fast and cheap, and it does not exist. You can have 2 out of 3, but not all three. The USA has health care that is good and fast, but it is not cheap, and your speed is only achieved by failing to provide universal health care to your whole population, and your declining life expectancy, and covid response failures suggest it's not that good to begin with. It's just expensive.

Other first world countries have better outcomes while providing universal coverage. They've gone for good and cheap. Yes there are waiting lists for some treatments, but it's on a triage basis. For example, my friend and I both went for knee replacement surgery at the same time. I was put on the waiting list. She had surgery 6 weeks later. She could barely walk, and was in great pain. I was walking unassisted and had very little pain. I didn't begrudge her getting in right away, and I had expected to be on the waiting list.

 

[dblack]

Insurance companies have NOTHING to do with healthcare in single payor countries.

Or not. If we implement it the way we do Medicare, the government will farm out the work to the same old insurance companies.

You get sick, you go to the doctor, get treated and go home to get better. We have no paperwork, no preapprovals, no denial of treatment. Doctors don't have to hire extra staff to deal with co-pays, insurance preapprovals, or billing.

Our administration costs are 7% compared to 30% in the USA. Your doctors have to hire additional staff and 3rd party billing companies to do their paperwork. Our doctors' receptionists do theirs. Some European countries have their admin costs down in the 3% range.

I have an OHIP photo ID card, which I present to the care giver and which they swipe. Their computer confirms the card is valid. The care giver confirms my address and contact details, and we're done. If I change my address, I have to notify OHIP, and every 5 years I get a new photo and a new card. That's my paperwork.

My annual co-pay is $100 for prescriptions. If my income was lower, I could even get that amount waived. I was shocked when President Biden said American seniors will be covered for prescriptions over $2000, on top of your other copays, and insurance bills.

Everybody wants health care that is good, fast and cheap, and it does not exist. You can have 2 out of 3, but not all three. The USA has health care that is good and fast, but it is not cheap, and your speed is only achieved by failing to provide universal health care to your whole population, and your declining life expectancy, and covid response failures suggest it's not that good to begin with. It's just expensive.

Other first world countries have better outcomes while providing universal coverage. They've gone for good and cheap. Yes there are waiting lists for some treatments, but it's on a triage basis. For example, my friend and I both went for knee replacement surgery at the same time. I was put on the waiting list. She had surgery 6 weeks later. She could barely walk, and was in great pain. I was walking unassisted and had very little pain. I didn't begrudge her getting in right away, and I had expected to be on the waiting list.

It's fine and good if you want to put your health care in the hands of the government. But have you considered how it might play out if an unhinged populist was elected President and took an axe to the program? You know, if they started cutting budgets, issued executive orders undermining the purpose and efficacy of the program? Wouldn't that suck?

But I guess that could never happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Otherwise that safeguards medical plan policy holder's for whom have paid into a medical plan for years, and of course had done so through their employer offered healthcare plans, (but was unfortunately denied virtually almost all of the services offered due to the set up of that plan get money back ????

Should they not get some of the money back once terminate the plan or lose it due to circumstances out of their control like changing jobs etc) ???

One has to beg the question - should the client and/or employee be reimbursed of a percentage of their money paid into a plan, and this being based upon the denial of services throughout the history of the plan that was paid into once they leave it or due to inactivity while on the plan once leave it ??

Should healthy individuals all due to the inactivity of usage by such clients being covered in a plan, (once exiting the plan for good), be entitled to a percentage reimbursement based upon a formula worked out by the feds and healthcare industry that would be created for treating Americans fairly in such a thing as paying alot of money in, but then getting so little out of it ???

Debate !!! Thanks

The private sector offers insurance coverage to make a profit. That profit pays the owner(s) and employees' wages/benefits, covers overhead expenses--rent/mortgage/depreciation, utilities, advertising, insurance, supplies, taxes/fees, etc. etc. etc. And some additional to expand/grow the business.

Premiums charged customers are based on probability that X number of claims will be filed leaving sufficient cash to cover all the rest.

ou are paying for somebody else to assume most of the risk for specific perils whether that be property loss or illness. Some customers will have claims far exceeding the premiums they pay in. Others will not have any claims at all. That's how the system works and why the insurance company can offer the service it provides. If everybody got back what they paid for insurance, no insurance companies would exist because they could not cover their expenses to stay in business.

But do not think the government could do it better. The government does not have to pay fees and taxes, but it also has overhead and a vast bureaucracy to support and a corrupt government has no incentive to provide services in the most economical, efficient, effective manner as private insurance does. And if we are entirely dependent on government for our healthcare or other insurance, the government can charge any amount it wants for the services provided.

 

[Dragonlady]

Or not. If we implement it the way we do Medicare, the government will farm out the work to the same old insurance companies.

It's fine and good if you want to put your health care in the hands of the government. But have you considered how it might play out if an unhinged populist was elected President and took an axe to the program? You know, if they started cutting budgets, issued executive orders undermining the purpose and efficacy of the program? Wouldn't that suck?

But I guess that could never happen.

Our health care isn't in the "hands of the government". It's in the hands of our medical professionals. PAYING FOR IT, is in the hands of the government. The government stays out of doctors' offices, and the practice of medicine.

As for your second authoritarian scenario, it then behoves you to take more care in who you elect President. Or better yet, get rid of Citizens United, and start questioning your mass media choices.

Allowing your candidate to commit crimes in the open without holding him responsible, and his media machine parrot his lies about being unfairly prosecuted, and an election which was not stolen, is hardly beneficial to the nation either.

 

[dblack]

Our health care isn't in the "hands of the government". It's in the hands of our medical professionals. PAYING FOR IT, is in the hands of the government. The government stays out of doctors' offices, and the practice of medicine.

Do you think that the government would stay out of the doctor's offices here?

As for your second authoritarian scenario, it then behoves you to take more care in who you elect President.

That's the thing. I can only control my vote. If my country goes full retard, I don't want my health care to be part of that fiasco.

Allowing your candidate to commit crimes in the open without holding him responsible, and his media machine parrot his lies about being unfairly prosecuted, and an election which was not stolen, is hardly beneficial to the nation either.

He was elected to do what he's doing. Again, I don't want my health care to be a political football.

 

[beagle9]

Great debating dblack and dragonlady.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Great debating dblack and dragonlady.

dblack's is based on fear and opinion, Dragonlady's is based on reality and fact.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Otherwise that safeguards medical plan policy holder's for whom have paid into a medical plan for years, and of course had done so through their employer offered healthcare plans, (but was unfortunately denied virtually almost all of the services offered due to the set up of that plan get money back ????

Should they not get some of the money back once terminate the plan or lose it due to circumstances out of their control like changing jobs etc) ???

One has to beg the question - should the client and/or employee be reimbursed of a percentage of their money paid into a plan, and this being based upon the denial of services throughout the history of the plan that was paid into once they leave it or due to inactivity while on the plan once leave it ??

Should healthy individuals all due to the inactivity of usage by such clients being covered in a plan, (once exiting the plan for good), be entitled to a percentage reimbursement based upon a formula worked out by the feds and healthcare industry that would be created for treating Americans fairly in such a thing as paying alot of money in, but then getting so little out of it ???

Debate !!! Thanks

I've never thought about this for medical, but injave thought this should be thr case for auto insurance. Say...if you go 10 years without a claim, you get reimbursed a portion of what you paid in.

 

[Dragonlady]

Or not. If we implement it the way we do Medicare, the government will farm out the work to the same old insurance companies.

It's fine and good if you want to put your health care in the hands of the government. But have you considered how it might play out if an unhinged populist was elected President and took an axe to the program? You know, if they started cutting budgets, issued executive orders undermining the purpose and efficacy of the program? Wouldn't that suck?

But I guess that could never happen.

If, if, if. Your system is literally KILLING people, and shortening lives, and you're afraid of your own government. Think about that. Americans are AFRAID of the people they elect.

The government is what YOU make of it. If you're going to elect people who are only interested in power, then you will get a Donald Trump every single time.

If you allow mass media to knowingly lie to you, under the guise of "freedom of speech", then it's every man, woman and child, for themselves and whatever they can get away with, which is where you're at now.

Stop talking about the government as something separate and apart from the people. YOUR government is what YOU make of it.

 

[dblack]

If, if, if.

IF??? It's happening before your eyes. If Obama had managed to pass single payer, can you imagine what Trump would be doing to it now??

The government is what YOU make of it.

No. The government is what the majority makes of it. And they are frequently wrong. I don't want them dictating my health care. Period.

 

[beagle9]

Do you think that the government would stay out of the doctor's offices here?

That's the thing. I can only control my vote. If my country goes full retard, I don't want my health care to be part of that fiasco.

He was elected to do what he's doing. Again, I don't want my health care to be a political football.

Agree, but what is a better model and/or solution maybe ?

 

[dblack]

Agree, but what is a better model and/or solution maybe ?

We need to stop trying to figure out how to get someone else to pay for our health care. In other words, we need to accept routine health care as a cost of living (just like food, housing, education, etc ...) and budget for it (just like we do for food, housing, education, etc ...).

The vast majority of health care consumers fall into two categories: Those who are insured - and don't care how much their health care costs because they're not paying for it; And those who aren't insured, most of whom can only hope to get health care via charity or welfare - who also don't care how much their health care costs because they're not paying for it.

So, the reason there aren't inexpensive health care options is because there's no demand for them. To change that, we need to get back to the baseline expectation that health care is something we have to pay for; that it's not "free", that it's not a "right". We need to be paying for most of our health care out of pocket.

If we do that, there will be a demand for affordable health care again. Not only a market demand, but a demand on government to remove barriers to cheaper health care alternatives.

With regard to government policy, we need to remove the tax incentives and other regulation pushing full-coverage insurance as a means of financing health care. We need to legalize catastrophic insurance again (I know these policies technically are still available, but ACA piled so many new requirements on them they are no longer cost effective). Then we need to bust up the state regulatory fiefdoms that the major insurance companies control.

 

[beagle9]

We need to stop trying to figure out how to get someone else to pay for our health care. In other words, we need to accept routine health care as a cost of living (just like food, housing, education, etc ...) and budget for it (just like we do for food, housing, education, etc ...).

The vast majority of health care consumers fall into two categories: Those who are insured - and don't care how much their health care costs because they're not paying for it; And those who aren't insured, most of whom can only hope to get health care via charity or welfare - who also don't care how much their health care costs because they're not paying for it.

So, the reason there aren't inexpensive health care options is because there's no demand for them. To change that, we need to get back to the baseline expectation that health care is something we have to pay for; that it's not "free", that it's not a "right". We need to be paying for most of our health care out of pocket.

If we do that, there will be a demand for affordable health care again. Not only a market demand, but a demand on government to remove barriers to cheaper health care alternatives.

With regard to government policy, we need to remove the tax incentives and other regulation pushing full-coverage insurance as a means of financing health care. We need to legalize catastrophic insurance again (I know these policies technically are still available, but ACA piled so many new requirements on them they are no longer cost effective). Then we need to bust up the state regulatory fiefdoms that the major insurance companies control.

You lost me with your "people need to stop wanting other people to pay for their Healthcare, because ironically that is exactly the model that has been set up whether it be in the private Healthcare industry or in the government run and/or government sanctioned Healthcare industry.

No one that still works or for those who have retired, ever expects hand outs for free. They've either paid into a Healthcare program or they are still paying into a healthcare program, and this per their employer or per their retirement benefits garnered over year's of their service. No one ever expects anyone else to pay for their Healthcare. It's being earned, and don't ever forget it.

Not sure where you are getting that bums for clients from ?? All anyone wants (like everything else in life), is to get a product that matches their money paid, and to get quality out of their money spent in return for a grand experience instead of a nasty experience.

 

[dblack]

You lost me with your "people need to stop wanting other people to pay for their Healthcare, because ironically that is exactly the model that has been set up whether it be in the private Healthcare industry or in the government run and/or government sanctioned Healthcare industry.

No one that still works or for those who have retired, ever expects hand outs for free. They've either paid into a Healthcare program or they are still paying into a healthcare program, and this per their employer or per their retirement benefits garnered over year's of their service. No one ever expects anyone else to pay for their Healthcare. It's being earned, and don't ever forget it.

Not sure where you are getting that bums for clients from ?? All anyone wants (like everything else in life), is to get a product that matches their money paid, and to get quality out of their money spent in return for a grand experience instead of a nasty experience.

Yeah. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I'm not really sure what you're going on about here.

 

[hondo 50]

... based upon a formula worked out by the feds and healthcare industry....

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Dragonlady]

The private sector offers insurance coverage to make a profit. That profit pays the owner(s) and employees' wages/benefits, covers overhead expenses--rent/mortgage/depreciation, utilities, advertising, insurance, supplies, taxes/fees, etc. etc. etc. And some additional to expand/grow the business.

Premiums charged customers are based on probability that X number of claims will be filed leaving sufficient cash to cover all the rest.

ou are paying for somebody else to assume most of the risk for specific perils whether that be property loss or illness. Some customers will have claims far exceeding the premiums they pay in. Others will not have any claims at all. That's how the system works and why the insurance company can offer the service it provides. If everybody got back what they paid for insurance, no insurance companies would exist because they could not cover their expenses to stay in business.

But do not think the government could do it better. The government does not have to pay fees and taxes, but it also has overhead and a vast bureaucracy to support and a corrupt government has no incentive to provide services in the most economical, efficient, effective manner as private insurance does. And if we are entirely dependent on government for our healthcare or other insurance, the government can charge any amount it wants for the services provided.

The insurance company "profit" does not go to insurance company expenses. The profit is what they have left AFTER paying salaries and expenses.

Do you think that the government would stay out of the doctor's offices here?

That's the thing. I can only control my vote. If my country goes full retard, I don't want my health care to be part of that fiasco.

He was elected to do what he's doing. Again, I don't want my health care to be a political football.

I don't see any difference between having insurance companies control your medical care or the government. At least the government doesn't have a mandate to keep as much of your premiums as possible, and to deny you care if at all possible.

"Insurance" is a very bad way of rationing health care, as the insurance company's mandate is always to deny your claims, and keep your premiums. The government

As for the government staying out of doctors' offices, that's up to YOU. If you keep electing people on the basis of a D or and R after their name, you're going to get people whose interests are aligned with keeping their party in power.

The government is not a nefarious institution out to "control people". That proposition is so assinine, that it's shocking that anyone is stupid enough to believe it.

But you have a large group of oligarchs who control mass media in the USA - TV stations, which pump out right wing lies and propaganda 24/7, selling people on the idea that Republicans are "better for the economy", and defend the Constitution from the godless communists in the Democratic Party.

These outlets keep the uninformed in a constant state of outrage over attacks on their "freedoms". Like the imaginary "War on Christmas". A surefire winner with their evangelical audience. How DARE other religions have major religious holidays in December!!!! How DARE these people think that "freedom of religion" means THEY get to celebrate their holidays TOO!!! This is a CHRISTIAN country!

In Canada, we sit and watch you people go batshit crazy over NOTHING, every December, like clockwork. Why can't you just accept that all religions have major holidays in December, and we all want to celebrate those spiritual events, in whatever manner our traditions dictate, without FOX turning the celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace, into a "War" to be waged against other religions.

There's no "war" on Christmas in any nation but the USA, so why does FOX promote this hatred?