Obamacare = early retirement anyone?

[sabray]

It's random health care. If your a women you may fair better. If your not insured the hospital might forgive you. If your covered but your policy doesn't cover something you might be screwed.
Like storm sandy. If your in the designated disaster area FEMA covers you. If sandy gave you a good screw over but only a few of your neighbors suffered your not eligible for FEMA relief. Basically your house was in the wrong neighborhood when the storm wiped you out so none for you. Makes no sense how we dole out help. Be it for healthcare, disaster relief etc...
We now can say we protect some lives some property and liberty when it suits our church.

[cfarrar]

Real world question: let's assume that you're cruising abroad, paying for basic health care out of pocket, with a policy for evacuation home in case of catastrophic medical needs, where you'll be covered by an insurance policy that you purchase on one of the medical exchanges established under Obamacare.

All well and good, but if your insurance plan doesn't work abroad, I wonder how you might get essential (expensive) medications? Mailed to you from the U.S.?

[boatsail]

Originally Posted by keepondancin

My wife's injuries in 1971 were covered to 80%. we paid the balance, about $9000. Simple math shows the bills about $45,000. We bought are first house the next year, for $35k, and it was sold by three owners later, about 5 years ago for $325k. Injuries in 2003, we had to go out of network which pays 80%. With negotiations with everyone, we still had to pay about $50k. We have a mortgage on our retirement house now, where it would have been almost paid off. The Dr's in NYC quite often don't contract with any insurance companies, and when asked, the replied that with the level of care that they give, they can't be constrained by the insurance companies. Back in '71, at Christmas, vendors would give us bottles of licquor for gifts. Not drinking whiskey, I traded them to a licquor store who we had insurance through. He was a family friend, and part of a merchants group, and the more people he had, the rates would be lower. I would trade two or three cased of booze for tow to three months of coverage. I think the premium was $90/month. The highest I paid was $1800/month for two of us, but premium coverage. Right now, I have a $1500 deductible, which I have only paid about $300 towards, and the premium is $550/mo.

The current owner of the house is stuck with a 325k mortgage and lost his job' no insurance, medical debt and can only sell for 220k. Since he can't make pymts he gets foreclosed o . This story is fictional, but in my business' I see it every single day.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Skipper65

I can tell you that the US health care system is broken. Too much fraud, litigation, waste and greed. Every small town Dr makes $500k per year. Canada has a much more successful model. Obama care is not the answer.....the federal govt can't even run the Post Office.....but at least it's an attempt at a solution. Maybe they'll tweak it enough to improve it. The real solution involves tort reform which will never happen when the majority of the legislators are themselves attorneys.

Wow, I want to move to your small town. In maryland, and most other states, primary care docs earn about 30% of what you say. They also are paying back mortgage sized student loans, all while deferring all significant earnings and retirement savings until well into their 30s after residency training.

That said, there are some highly specialized fields where you can earn 500k. One is neurosurgery, and they can have it for the extra 6 years of residency training. Others may come back to earth as we approach cost certainty.

Yes, tort reform is necessary.

And this bill is far from perfect, but if Obama hadn't won reelection, what politcian would have touched healthcare reform (which is essential as we speed toward the precipice) for the next 20 yrs

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Yes, tort reform is necessary.

When you say "tort reform" what are you talking about? The "tort reform" proposals generally kicked around focus on limiting damage awards for non economic damages (pain and suffering / punitives / loss of consortium / loss of use and enjoyment of limbs etc) not only in medical cases but across the board. You are not suggesting that these things be conjoined are you?

Assuming you mean "medical malpractice reform" rather than tort reform (i.e. you are not talking about protecting polluters and manufacturers of unsafe products as part of your healthcare proposal) then I would ask exactly what type of "medical malpractice reform" you believe is justified.

The ideologues who drive these proposals want "hard caps" on certain types of damages (ideologues may be a generous characterization - they are mostly lobbyist driven). They suggest that 250K is all the punishment that should be dolled out for bad behavior by the medical profession (remember that punitive damages are not available where the harm happened "by mistake"). Do you believe that the 80 year old who dies from a fall on an understaffed hospital floor should be awarded the cap the same as a 68 year old who dies as a result of a drunken surgeon who was a known risk to the hospital administration who kept him on because he was associated with a funder? Those are the sorts of differences (an impacts on hospital and provider policy) that will result from mindless "reform".

Real differences matter. The fact is that there is substantial evidence that the societal benefit of these awards outweighs its immediate costs (i.e. punitives are cost effective). That said, we were to consider "medical malpractice reform" as part of a healthcare solution, I would suggest that it be as part of a multifaceted recognition that "healthcare is different". That would include universal coverage; protection for providers of all well intentioned coverage; pharmaceutical advertising and patent reform. But Obamacare, for all the hype does not approach any such sort of grand change. As pointed out above, it is basically a reform of the insurance regulatory scheme.

Simply put, "tort reform" doesn't seem to applicable to the discussion.

[Finistere]

Originally Posted by avb3

Our Canadian medical costs as a percentage of GDP are 1/3 less than in the States. We live longer. I suspect there is a ton of inefficiency in the US model.

Yes and you accomplish this how. My then 93 old mother spent 4 days laying on a gurney in the hallway and hardly being attended to in a hospital close to Toronto. I can give you several other examples of substandard care of family members living in that area. The joke is that if you really need care you got to Buffalo or Miami as the premier of Newfoundland did. Any system is great as long as you are healthy. I have now had experiences with the US healthcare system for over thirty years, it maybe more costly but I can assure you it is one hell of a lot better, look up survival rates for serious illness and the US on top every time.

[jongleur]

Rakuflames posted:

No matter how hard psychologists, nutritionists and MD's have tried, they haven't yet found an effective way for people to lose AND keep off weight. 95% of those who lose weight gain some or all of it back.


Not quite true. Check out: Dietdoctor.com

[propellanttech]

Originally Posted by Mambo

The "congress should share the same suffering as the average american worker" argument never did anything for me. Still, if you are going to buy into it -- buy into it -- maybe we should peg the salaries (and pensions) of the congress to the national median income level. Why are fringe benefits always the focus of this train of thought?

What's fringe about them not having the same medical coverage?

I'm not going to listen to any argument that has nothing to do with my situation. I'm human, and they are too. Believing any different is naive.

We can't do anything, we can complain....and that is it. How are we going to change a system that requires the people in charge to take their own power away? Yeah......keep thinking that will happen.

The system is in a catch 22 loop. It's the way they twisted it, now we have no power to change it. It's great to be kings.

James L

[oldragbaggers]

I have to say this is one of the most interesting threads I have seen so far and has presented a lot of things to consider on both sides of this issue. I have not been a fan of Obamacare up to this point but I am not knowledgeable enough to be bullheaded, so I am trying to keep an open mind and consider points made by both sides. This thread has given me plenty to think about.

The only thing to do now is watch it play out and pray that those responsible for implementing it will do so wisely and with the best interests of the people and the country at heart.

Thanks to all who have tried to contribute in a constructive way.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Finistere

Yes and you accomplish this how. My then 93 old mother spent 4 days laying on a gurney in the hallway and hardly being attended to in a hospital close to Toronto. I can give you several other examples of substandard care of family members living in that area. The joke is that if you really need care you got to Buffalo or Miami as the premier of Newfoundland did. Any system is great as long as you are healthy. I have now had experiences with the US healthcare system for over thirty years, it maybe more costly but I can assure you it is one hell of a lot better, look up survival rates for serious illness and the US on top every time.

I suppose there are different experiences. When I needed to have care and ended up in hospital for 3.5 months, it was there in spades. When my mother needed it, it was there now and in spades. A friend of mine just got diagnosed with cancer, he was in surgery 3 days later.

Overall, we do live longer. As far as survival rates on serious illnesses, perhaps factcheck.org is as good a reference as any. They dispute your suggestion. In part they say:

For one thing, survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage. Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment, so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by jongleur

Rakuflames posted:

No matter how hard psychologists, nutritionists and MD's have tried, they haven't yet found an effective way for people to lose AND keep off weight. 95% of those who lose weight gain some or all of it back.


Not quite true. Check out: Dietdoctor.com

Can't believe so many people have been fooled into thinking change of diet can't change things. Even more importantly, lots of sailing will bring down your weight and the hospital bills. I'm told cruisers experience "reverse aging" because even when asleep they are exercising- (bracing themselves against the movement.) Cruisers should have tax discounts on health care!

[GaryMayo]

Looks through M, this has turned to a pro obamacare thread. If the voice of the people cannot be listened to, I will go back to the threads where everyone has a voice.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

Looks through M, this has turned to a pro obamacare thread. If the voice of the people cannot be listened to, I will go back to the threads where everyone has a voice.

???? I really didn't like the thread where people told me my cost cutting hatch repair wouldn't work, I'm going to find people who agree with me.

[bgallinger]

This thread has been facinating reading. As a Canadian citizen, but a happy US resident with a US healthcare plan I certainly have some views. I suspect it may be some years before the real effects of Obamacare are seen. Until then..sail fit and sail safe!

[Jamel]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Can't believe so many people have been fooled into thinking change of diet can't change things. Even more importantly, lots of sailing will bring down your weight and the hospital bills. I'm told cruisers experience "reverse aging" because even when asleep they are exercising- (bracing themselves against the movement.) Cruisers should have tax discounts on health care!

I'm a living breathing 65 yr old example of that going sailing & cruising full time has reduced my weight, I feel great and as healthy as any time in my life.....bring it on!