Jump to content

Difficult to believe that


woolybanana
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't really understand how the American system works. Supposing the child of an ordinary working couple with decent insurance contracts a long-term illness which requires expensive treatment and perhaps one or both of them to give up work. Does the original insurance continue to pay forever ?

Hoddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't get the "quote" to work, but this is in reply to Hoddy's question (does the cover go on for ever if you lose your job?).

I'm fairly sure that it doesn't. There is a "continuation of benefits" law that requires insurers to continue the cover for a certain time, but not for ever. In any case, even if the cover doesn't expire, there are typically annual or lifetime limits on the amount payable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare

CdeL - you realise that when Mitt Roney became governor of MA he was very much in favor of a very similar scheme?[/quote]

Yep. But I don't agree with everything he believes in.

Besides, I think he always said it would work better if each individual state would run it, as a national scheme it wouldn't work.

But if the majority have work again, Obamacare isn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If the majority have work again, Obamacare isn't needed" [8-)]

The majority DO have work, and always have. Currently, the US unemployment rate is just over 9.5%, I believe. Generally, it hovers around the 5% mark, but it did reach over 9.5% before, under Reagan. So - as in most countries - it's not the preserve of any one political party to cock up, they can all manage to do it, and frequently do. I understand that despite the majority having work, there are still plenty of that majority who have little or no healthcare. I don't think it's so much about the insurance as the obscenely high costs of medical treatment in the US, coupled with the attitude of insurance companies to any claims, finding eye-wateringly unbelievable ways to weasel out of paying.

At the time Sarko, then Cameron and Obama, and indeed Merkel got elected, I said that I'd be surprised if any of them managed more than one term apart from Merkel, because they were all coming into office to pick up the pieces after the banking crisis hit home. each one of them was faced with a no-win situation, and would have to make some very unpopular decisions. I'd like to see Obama get a second term, but if it's just about him clinging on to the presidency whilst a Republican House and Senate block his every move, then will it really be worthwhile? Not that I relish the idea of Romney being elected. He almost makes Palin look bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare CdeL - you realise that when Mitt Roney became governor of MA he was very much in favor of a very similar scheme?[/quote]

I rather suspect that many Americans actually understand the link you have given. I also doubt that CdL bothered to read it either yet he has already benefited from it in a way in that those with existing conditions (not him personally hopefully) cannot be charged a premium for their health insurance, to mention just one of its advantages. It has also benefited the American domestic drug companies in that imported drugs are now taxed quite heavily thus creating a higher demand for domestic drugs which in turn creates more jobs. It makes health insurance more affordable for low income families but at the expense, in part, of companies which is probably why the greedy Republicans don't like it very much. All in all it is quite a good idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes very compelling reading. It gives some indication, based on recent data, of  where US healthcare sits. I believe this report is updated annually in November, so new data should be available very soon.

[url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2010/Nov/Int%20Survey/PDF_2010_IHP_Survey_Chartpack_FINAL_white_bkgd_111610_ds.pdf]2010 COMMONWEALTH FUND SURVEY[/url]

It also indicates that there are a large number of UK residents wearing rose tinted spectacles, or that there are many people who have chosen to move to France who have been extraordinarily unfortunate with their healthcare in the UK and somewhat fortunate with their healthcare in France. Possibly.[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RH wrote: "It depends how you look at it - personally I wouldn't want some guy in an insurance office deciding what treatment I get…"

He doesn't decide what treatment you get – he only decides what treatment the insurer will pay for. And that's what happens in France, except that instead of a guy in an insurance office it's a guy in the Assurance Maladie office.

But the insurance office is trying to maximise the company's profit, which is why there are so many limits and exceptions in the policy. One of the worst examples is the exclusion for pre-existing conditions, which means that if you have a serious condition and then lose your job, and you're lucky enough to find another one, you're still left with no cover for that condition. And you can't really blame the insurance company: why should they accept a "risk" which in fact has already happened? It would be like forcing them to issue a new policy on your house when the fire has already started.

In my opinion this problem alone is just about enough to justify some kind of universal health cover funded mainly by the state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will never happen here though. The insurance companies are too far embedded to the system. Plus many Americans don't actually like having their health care dictated to by politicians.

I really have no idea what the answer is. If I did, I'd be a millionaire. Actually, probably a billionaire.

As I said earlier in the thread, I like the French system as it provides an area of responsibility for each individual to try and take care of themselves, and not go to the dr at every little ache or pain.

The American system has its advantages, the service is often second to none. My wife recently has had to have some treatment done, and she was sorted within a couple of weeks. Her uncle was treated for cancer very recently too, and the level, speed and quality of service is among the best I've ever seen.

Figures also show that the US is in fact the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks of referal and its breast cancer treatment it comes out second only to Germany (the UK is at the bottom of this particular comparison). These figures are taken from an article in the NY Times when comparing US healthcare to social systems. It did also show it costs the most because of insurance companies, and because people don't pay back what they owe after treatment.

I probably won't be able to continue this debate for a few days, I'm getting prepared to be hit by a big hurricane that's coming my way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C de L  wrote :I probably won't be able to continue this debate for a few days, I'm getting prepared to be hit by a big hurricane that's coming my way!

It has been reported that the Obama camp are worried about this storm. It seems that if Obama is seen inspecting damage and disruption.Then damage and disruption may be seen by many as a way to view his term in office and he will lose votes    Unbelievable !  ..... but then again that's America .

Take care out there C de L and stay safe .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C de L wrote: "the system [in the USA] is often second to none" and "the US is the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks…"

No doubt, but that's only for people who have access to it, i.e. those who are either employed or rich.

Here are typical "fair costs" in the US for a couple of procedures, taken from the Healthcare Blue Book: Hip replacement: surgeon's fee $2,500, hospital $19,000 (assuming 4 days in hospital)

Coronary bypass: surgeon & anaesthetist $6,200, hospital $57,000 (assuming 10 days)

In each case, additional time in hospital is quoted as $1,800 per day.

Do Romney & co understand what these numbers imply for someone who doesn't have insurance? Or who has insurance because of his job, but is worried about the plant closing down?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's incalculable, but I wonder what the effect is on overall productivity  of having people in jobs they dislike or aren't comfortable in, because the alternative is no job/no insurance? Or, to put it another way, if someone's forced into a job in order to get insurance cover, is that the best motivation?

Yes, I fully appreciate the other extreme, which (in the UK, anyway) is the culture of "I'm better off on benefits" and I don't think that's right either, but there must be a middle ground?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="allanb"]C de L wrote: "the system [in the USA] is often second to none" and "the US is the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks…"

No doubt, but that's only for people who have access to it, i.e. those who are either employed or rich.

Here are typical "fair costs" in the US for a couple of procedures, taken from the Healthcare Blue Book: Hip replacement: surgeon's fee $2,500, hospital $19,000 (assuming 4 days in hospital)

Coronary bypass: surgeon & anaesthetist $6,200, hospital $57,000 (assuming 10 days)

In each case, additional time in hospital is quoted as $1,800 per day.

Do Romney & co understand what these numbers imply for someone who doesn't have insurance? Or who has insurance because of his job, but is worried about the plant closing down?[/quote]

I would imagine Romney and co do understand, hence his focus to improve medicare. Plus his main policy on getting people back into work. Obama has mentioned very little about work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still like to know what would happen in the case I asked about earlier. A young couple with two small children, the man at work. The older boy is diagnosed with an incurable, life-changing, but not immediately life threatening disease.

Presumably they would be covered for now. What I don't understand is what would happen to them long-term. Can anyone enlighten me ?

Hoddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="allanb"]Coronary bypass: surgeon & anaesthetist $6,200, hospital $57,000 (assuming 10 days) In each case, additional time in hospital is quoted as $1,800 per day. Do Romney & co understand what these numbers imply for someone who doesn't have insurance? Or who has insurance because of his job, but is worried about the plant closing down?[/quote]

They are not very efficient in the US then. Whilst waiting to be send home from The London Chest Hospital after having my stents fitted (one night stay) there was a chap also waited who had a triple bypass, his total stay was three days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I told a fib, it was the London Independent I had it done (Mrs 'Q' has just reminded me) and it was back in 2000. His was a 'full split' as well, he liked to show me, and the others,  the dressings where they did it and where they took the veins from, a classic "Did I tell you about my operation" scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoddy, I answered your question to the best of my ability (see my post yesterday). Admittedly what I wrote was a bit vague, but employers' health coverage varies quite widely, and I think you'd need to gather a lot of data to answer the question completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I remember reading a piece by I think Justin Webb, the BBC's correspondant before Mark Mardell, about trying to get supplies for his child who has type 1 diabetes. Before they came home they wanted to have a holiday in the USA and take the children to Disneyland - apparently it was really difficult to get these additional suplies, and they were very strict with the number of test strips too, despite the fact that it was a  child and things don't always go to plan. In the Uk they get what they need free of charge.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/How_we_help/Magazines/Balance/Past-issues/NovemberDecember-2010/A-bright-tomorrow/?print=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...