Affordable Care Act - catastrophic plans cancelled

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I guess I know richer Canadians than you do. They tell me everyone should pay cash like they do in the US.

.....This whole idea seems crazy....

Since the cost of healthcare in the US is incredibly high compared to Canada, why would anyone come here?

Unless they're looking for elective surgeries, in which case, it's not quite the same.....

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

That doesn't explain why the previous poster specifically feels that CHILDBIRTH for a MAN is covered.

An ACA policy for me, a male, includes maternity coverage and other things that don't apply. All ACA compliant policies cover the same 'Health Benefits' no matter the sex, race, age, or previous condition. This is the 'shared responsibility' mandated by the ACA and it results in some paying a lot more and some paying a lot less. There should be a middle ground.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I guess I know richer Canadians than you do. They tell me everyone should pay cash like they do in the US.

Yes, Canada has its share of well-off yet selfish and ill informed people too. Did you tell them that not all Americans pay cash for healthcare?

[Boatguy30]

It was a neuvo riche Canadian saying he would like to scrap national health so he could save on taxes.

His specific example was his daughter was born with a cleft pallet. I guess it was a 3 year wait and it is impossible to pay to have it done in Canada. He took her to buffalo. Interestingly this occurred in the fall of 2008 at a fairly politically charged gather of wealthy racing sailors. Most were very scared of "change"

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by jcapo

An ACA policy for me, a male, includes maternity coverage and other things that don't apply. All ACA compliant policies cover the same 'Health Benefits' no matter the sex, race, age, or previous condition. This is the 'shared responsibility' mandated by the ACA and it results in some paying a lot more and some paying a lot less. There should be a middle ground.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

We need to go back to the discriminatory policies that charged women more for their healthcare.

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

Ah, I see what you're saying.

We need to go back to the discriminatory policies that charged women more for their healthcare.

No, I said there should be a middle ground. 100% increases is not middle ground.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

Ah, I see what you're saying.

We need to go back to the discriminatory policies that charged women more for their healthcare.

It's not really discriminatory if it charges people based on what they will cost.

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

It's not really discriminatory if it charges people based on what they will cost.

1. It is discriminatory if you plan on charging them extra just because they are female.

2. Babies come from the union of both male and female gametes. Why shouldn't men bear part of the financial responsibility of something they took part in creating?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

1. It is discriminatory if you plan on charging them extra just because they are female.

2. Babies come from the union of both male and female gametes. Why shouldn't men bear part of the financial responsibility of something they took part in creating?

They should, and they do.

But I suppose since the female is the one going to the hospital, it's her insurance that pays. And her insurance that should be priced accordingly.

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

They should, and they do.

But I suppose since the female is the one going to the hospital, it's her insurance that pays. And her insurance that should be priced accordingly.

This is such an appalling statement that I don't even have an answer.

Wow.

[goboatingnow]

Interesting, I was talking to BUPA in the UK and VHI in Ireland and they both indicated they have world health insurance plans , well excluding the US, for about 200-450 €/£ per person per month , low excess (none to 100) , can add dental and other stuff, tailoring can reduce costs , includes GP and drugs as options, Open to US residents , who DO NOT require cover in the US or medical repatriation to the US ( though you have to talk to the insurers to get to the bottom of this), You nominate a repatriation country by agreement.

Maybe useful to US long term cruisers, both insurers are big in their respective markets and of course all comms in English.

Google BUPA/VHI International/Wordwide Heath Insurance

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Clearly, the older population is the bigger beneficiary, and eventually care will need to be rationed in some way, but no politician is going to want to discuss this concept frankly, as they don't want to get blamed for advocating "death panels". So prepare yourself for lots of B.S. in the ongoing health care discussion.

Where Im in currently , thats called " community rating", i.e. age cannot be reflected in the price of Health Insurance.

Its the only way to ensure Health insurance can work, i.e. the young pay more and take out less, so that when they get old, they can pay less and take out more. The vast majority of young people do get old!

If you design the system such that its reflects usage, you get a system where older people simply cannot afford healthcare and young people get it for virtually free. Thats simply can't work.


dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

His specific example was his daughter was born with a cleft pallet. I guess it was a 3 year wait and it is impossible to pay to have it done in Canada.

Someone's BSing, or there's missing info. There wouldn't be a 3 yr wait on a cleft palate of a newborn, unless there were medical reasons for waiting.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Where Im in currently , thats called " community rating", i.e. age cannot be reflected in the price of Health Insurance.

Its the only way to ensure Health insurance can work, i.e. the young pay more and take out less, so that when they get old, they can pay less and take out more. The vast majority of young people do get old!

If you design the system such that its reflects usage, you get a system where older people simply cannot afford healthcare and young people get it for virtually free. Thats simply can't work.


dave

You're right, there needs to be an injustice for it to work in the short term, but in the long term, we all hope to be on the receiving end. (In other words, like with social security, we all hope to one day be the beneficiary.)

But you missed the important point. The important point is that for insurance to be affordable, it needs to have limits.

Right now, 25% of our health care dollars are being spent on the last year of life. We're wasting funds on the elderly, without much chance of extending life, that would be better allocated to other health care priorities.

It is our objective of having unlimited health care, with unlimited profits, with someone else paying, that makes this kind of a mess.

[goboatingnow]

It is our objective of having unlimited health care, with unlimited profits, with someone else paying, that makes this kind of a mess.

By its very nature, there can't be much of a ceiling on health care, you have to attempt to cure the person , irrespective of costs and most countries systems "attempt" to do just that.

The reality is that actual healthcare system are completely constrained by budgets and hence the care you get , is very defined by that. Thats just a fact of life

So no healthcare system offers unlimited care, with unlimited profits.

Unless you socialise the whole process. agree standard pay scales for personnel and treat healthcare like the public school system, then you get private/public conflict. Theres nothing stopping healthcare system in evolving like that , the UK NHS is quite close as is France's. But its hard to transisition a system from one to the other. ( too many entrenched interests)

Dave