As Obamacare losses mount, so do the lawsuits

[fsquid]

The problem is "for profit" health insurance companies.

Not so much, there are regulations that say what percentage of premiums insurance companies must spend directly on healthcare of the policy holders. These insurance companies aren't raking in huge percentages in profits.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it's not the point, really. A universal, single-payer system wouldn't have this issue.

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

[fsquid]

The problem is "for profit" health insurance companies.

Take the profit out of health care, and you take the providers out of health care.

[ben says]

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

Spoken like someone who has no *real* idea how Canada/UK healthcare works...

As if UK/CA citizens are dropping like flies or something.

[MusicMan]

"Take the profit out of health care, and you take the providers out of health care."


WRONG. Health insurance companies provide NO healthcare. They collect premiums, skim off hundreds of billions of dollars, then pass along the rest to doctors, WHO ACTUALLY PROVIDE HEALTHCARE. I pay $1200 per month to BCBS of Florida, but I don't go to their office at SJTC for healthcare. I go to my doctor for that.

[Adam White]

I am not sure I understand (with regard to your questions about profit). Gross profit exists in all industries - including the service industry. It isn't limited to manufacturing, where it would calculated as selling price minus cost of goods sold. I would substitute the cost to provide the service. I am not an accountant or anything like that, so my understanding is rudimentary.

As far as why they should receive any profit - I suppose because they are for-profit companies. This is why this approach is flawed.

Ha.  That's ok, after re-reading it, I only understand it because I know the point I'm trying to make. 

Bored, inside on a Sunday = free typing as I think.

I think we're probably sort of making the same point.

[Adam White]

The problem is "for profit" health insurance companies.

Not so much, there are regulations that say what percentage of premiums insurance companies must spend directly on healthcare of the policy holders. These insurance companies aren't raking in huge percentages in profits.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it's not the point, really. A universal, single-payer system wouldn't have this issue.

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

I have no knowledge of the Canadian system, but I can answer any questions you might have about the UK system. I think you might be surprised by the reality. I honestly believe the quality of care I've received in the UK has been far better than what I received USA.

[MusicMan]

One of my best friends is from UK and he would agree with A White 100%. He lives here in San Marco and his wife is a physician.  Every citizen in the UK is covered with a decent basic health insurance program, unemeployed, homeless, everyone.  If you have money and want more comprehensive care it's available. But the basic plan is pretty damn good, and way cheaper per capita than here. Doctors there make less money for sure, but enjoy a high social status and get perks as benefits. Their schooling is basically free.

[fsquid]

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

Spoken like someone who has no *real* idea how Canada/UK healthcare works...

As if UK/CA citizens are dropping like flies or something.

so why do Canadians go to the US and Brits go to France when they need something non-routine?  Or they go when a government worker says they have to wait in line for a procedure?

[fsquid]

The problem is "for profit" health insurance companies.

Take the profit out of health care, and you take the providers out of health care.

um. wow.

What does federal funding of insurance companies have to do with health care providers?  Last I checked they were two separate industries.  its like saying that if you took the profits out of auto insurance, mechanics would disappear.

On the other hand, people might actually pay mechanics.

I'm assuming that if you take the insurance companies out of the equation and have one insurance company (the Gov't) then doctor pay will fall substacially.  You then will no longer get the best and the brightest as doctors.  I kind of want the best and the brightest when I'm in dire straights.

[fsquid]

"Take the profit out of health care, and you take the providers out of health care."


WRONG. Health insurance companies provide NO healthcare. They collect premiums, skim off hundreds of billions of dollars, then pass along the rest to doctors, WHO ACTUALLY PROVIDE HEALTHCARE. I pay $1200 per month to BCBS of Florida, but I don't go to their office at SJTC for healthcare. I go to my doctor for that.

correct.  The actually have to skim that money (not billions) because the state they are in makes them have reserves which are checked by regulators on some basis.

You pay $1200?  I thought premiums were supposed to go down under this law?

[fsquid]

One of my best friends is from UK and he would agree with A White 100%. He lives here in San Marco and his wife is a physician.  Every citizen in the UK is covered with a decent basic health insurance program, unemeployed, homeless, everyone.  If you have money and want more comprehensive care it's available. But the basic plan is pretty damn good, and way cheaper per capita than here. Doctors there make less money for sure, but enjoy a high social status and get perks as benefits. Their schooling is basically free.

Single-payer/single-provider systems are no less with the the bucks than insurance companies. They are actually more stingy. That's why health care costs are lower in those systems. And they have a lot less flexibility to deal with the problems. They spend what's in the budget. If what you are sick with is not in the budget, they send you home to wait until it is.

[Adam White]

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

Spoken like someone who has no *real* idea how Canada/UK healthcare works...

As if UK/CA citizens are dropping like flies or something.

so why do Canadians go to the US and Brits go to France when they need something non-routine?  Or they go when a government worker says they have to wait in line for a procedure?

I have never heard of Britons going to France because for medical treatment. That said, there is a very large ex-pat British community in France (primarily in the south) and they may have to use the French system. I think maybe you've got your wires crossed there.

I did read something about officials in Kent contracting with a hospital in Calais to serve some of their patients - though it appears this particular hospital took part in the tendering process and met the criteria. This wasn't about patients not being able to see doctors in the UK and being forced to seek healthcare abroad.

[fsquid]

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

Spoken like someone who has no *real* idea how Canada/UK healthcare works...

As if UK/CA citizens are dropping like flies or something.

so why do Canadians go to the US and Brits go to France when they need something non-routine?  Or they go when a government worker says they have to wait in line for a procedure?

I have never heard of Britons going to France because for medical treatment. That said, there is a very large ex-pat British community in France (primarily in the south) and they may have to use the French system. I think maybe you've got your wires crossed there.

I did read something about officials in Kent contracting with a hospital in Calais to serve some of their patients - though it appears this particular hospital took part in the tendering process and met the criteria. This wasn't about patients not being able to see doctors in the UK and being forced to seek healthcare abroad.

Brits have been going to France for years when the wait in the UK for a procedure was longer than what the consultant advised.  This woman sued the NHS and won so now the UK has to pay when their people go overseas to get procedures done that the NHS either denies or puts them in too long a line.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4985190.stm

[Adam White]

which version do you propose?  If its like Canada and the UK, no thanks.

Spoken like someone who has no *real* idea how Canada/UK healthcare works...

As if UK/CA citizens are dropping like flies or something.

so why do Canadians go to the US and Brits go to France when they need something non-routine?  Or they go when a government worker says they have to wait in line for a procedure?

I have never heard of Britons going to France because for medical treatment. That said, there is a very large ex-pat British community in France (primarily in the south) and they may have to use the French system. I think maybe you've got your wires crossed there.

I did read something about officials in Kent contracting with a hospital in Calais to serve some of their patients - though it appears this particular hospital took part in the tendering process and met the criteria. This wasn't about patients not being able to see doctors in the UK and being forced to seek healthcare abroad.

Brits have been going to France for years when the wait in the UK for a procedure was longer than what the consultant advised.  This woman sued the NHS and won so now the UK has to pay when their people go overseas to get procedures done that the NHS either denies or puts them in too long a line.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4985190.stm

That was 10 years ago! I've not heard of anything since I moved to the UK in 2007. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it means that if it has, it's quite rare. The Mail, Sun, Express, etc would be making a big deal about it if it were.

I realize that anecdotal evidence only carries so much weight, but here you go:

February 2007 - having been in the country for about a month and a half, I pulled a muscle in my shoulder when moving furniture. I called the NHS and they referred me to Charing Cross hospital. I walked in, waited 10 minutes, saw a nurse and was given an injection and a prescription (which cost me about £7). I was out of there in about 30 minutes and there was no charge. And I didn't even have to show ID.

December 2008 - I hadn't bothered registering with a GP and had an abscess on my hip that was extremely painful and making me ill. I went to A&E at Homerton hospital and saw a doctor. He prescribed me antibiotics and scheduled a follow-up for a week later. I went to the follow-up visit and was immediately admitted to the hospital for surgery. I was knocked out and under the knife within hours. I spent the night in hospital and went home the following day. I had to have the dressing changed every day for the first few weeks - and since xmas was coming up, they sent a nurse to my house over the holiday to do it there. No wait and no charge.

January 2012 - spent the night in hospital due to stabbing pains in my head (I'm a migraine sufferer). Saw a neurologist the next day.

I've also had an MRI, echocardiogram, chest CT and ongoing treatment for my migraines (still happening, as a matter of fact). The longest I ever had to wait for anything was about 8 weeks to get my eyelids sorted out once.

Of course, if I didn't like using the NHS, I could get private health insurance (like BUPA). So everyone is able to use the NHS, but no one is stopping you from using a private health insurance provider (and private doctors and hospitals).

[MusicMan]

I hate to break it to you, but Americans have been going overseas (and borders) as well for all types of surgeries and procedures and cheaper prescriptions.