How Much More Does Medication Cost In The US?

nilepez said:
Is that fair, given that they didn't need Republican support to pass it and it was passed without any Republican support? I'm not say Reps aren't part of the problem, but I Democrats were a problem too and there were Democrats that didn't vote for it either.

We have what we have, because that's what it took to get enough Democrats on board.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting topic. The republicans basically all voted nay. So it seems like it's easy to push the whole thing off on the Dems. But, the bill existed for a long time in committee before being voted on. Those committees were bipartisan and exhaustive negotiations and compromises took place to get the bill through. The republicans made 160+ amendments to the ACA in committee. One would think that if they didn't want the bill, they wouldn't have bothered making so many changes to it.
 
nilepez said:
Agreed. The problem in the U.S. is we pay too little for drugs. How is it that Anti-Biotics are so cheap? They save peoples lives! Surely our lives are worth a couple of thousand bucks a year. Got AIDS? Million a year seems reasonable to me. Alzheimer? You're old. Die already.
Click to expand...

It's unbelievable what people think. You're putting a price on your life and one you couldn't possibly pay. If you get sick, like real sick, like Alzheimer's or Parkinson’s disease at a young age then you couldn't afford it. It can happen, cause aging isn't the same for everyone. Due to genes your cells can break down really fast and develop these problems early in life like at 30 years old.

You can't afford it cause that Titan-X graphics with Intel 6700K was just too tempting at the time, plus you upgrade that PC every year. Can't go bellow 60FPS at 4k max settings. Then you get Alzheimer's at 30 and no big deal the insurance company will take care of you. Except they don't and dump your ass. You're old. Die already.

It's too bad too cause SENS Research just developed a cure for Mitochondrial aging which is the main cause of Alzheimer's. Even if you had insurance they wouldn't use the treatment on you cause it's too new and expensive. You have defective genes, time to die.

cbe0241580c4e975b1f2e5639d50d8330d0a2475a06898e035cbf0fd6ac6e9ca.jpg
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Other Provisions that the ACA brought in that were badly needed.
1) Ends Pre Existing Condition Exclusions for Children. This was HUGE and people just gloss over it. This put an absolute stop to insurance refusing to cover children because of pre existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Imagine if removing restrictions on pre-existing conditions applied to other types of insurance. I want to be able to purchase a comprehensive policy on a car with a pre-existing condition, namely one that has already been wrecked. Or maybe I can buy computer hardware insurance and file a claim on an old clunker I've had since 2004 so that I can upgrade to the newest and greatest specs. Universal gaming computer care should be a fundamental human right.

2) It added provisions for Young adults to be allowed to be covered on their parents plan up to age 26. Basically they can stay covered this way while in college instead of having to page huge rates for their own policy while not employed.
Click to expand...

Most universities, colleges, and even community colleges already offered health insurance coverage for full-time students.

4) A Near Complete Ban on lifetime benefit limits, meaning your insurance company can no longer say "Nope, we aren't covering your heart condition you developed after years of paying us because that is too expensive".
Click to expand...

It is highly unlikely that the "years of paying us" approached anywhere near the lifetime limit. Back in the mid-2000s, I had a policy through my employer that cost just $25 every two weeks with a $1,000 deductible and reasonable co-pays ($50 for emergency room visits, $15 for doctor's appointments, etc.). My lifetime limit, at which point the insurance company would no longer cover expenses, was set at one million dollars. I figured if I ever reached the point where exceeding the lifetime cap became an issue, then I had much greater problems than finances and affordability to worry about.

6) Stops certain insurance plans from denying emergency service claims. This was largely aimed at certain HMO's who were notorious for denying out of network emergency claims just because someone got into an accident while on vacation.
Click to expand...

Because people were so incapable of planning their vacations in compliance with their insurers' networks that the only solution was to call massa guv'mint in to punish those evil insurance companies for daring to choose hospitals based on criteria like Joint Commission accreditation or outcomes data. Might as well just do away with the whole concept of in-network and out-of-network hospitals and clinics altogether if the insurers aren't permitted to favor one over the other.

Additionally Working adults should have a reasonable expectation of being able to afford basic healthcare and shouldn't fear an unknown health issue or an Accident ruining you financially forever.
Click to expand...

People who become unemployed face similar concerns. Maybe we should pass a law that forbids employers from firing them, since, after all, you wouldn't want them getting ruined financially forever due to a little thing like occupational incompetence.

I think the short of it is this; Any person who votes for a candidate who supports repealing ACA instead of continuing to make it better, really is a giant prick. There is absolutely ZERO reason outside political BS to be against the ACA.
Click to expand...

Resorting to the false alternative fallacy to defend socialized health care deprives your arguments of sorely needed logic.

It is a great system that absolutely improved health insurance in the US.
Click to expand...

For people who chose not to have health insurance through traditional methods but had health expenses, maybe. They were a distinct minority (15.4%, 46.3 million people in 2008, and 22% of those (10.186 million) were non-citizens), but still served as fodder for those seeking to expand government power and to impose an unconventional tax upon people for whom the then-current health care system, while not perfect, was still at least sufficient to meet their needs.

It has some flaws and yes it needs more work.
Click to expand...

That could also be said for the U.S. health care system before Obamacare. Conservative think tanks have a list of suggestions that they recommend to improve that system without the need for Obamacare and its freedom-suppressing provisions.
 
Ashbringer said:
It's unbelievable what people think.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's unbelievable that people dissent when the establishment is liberal, but it is cool and counter-cultural to dissent when the establishment is conservative.

You have defective genes, time to die.
Click to expand...

A commonly cited justification for unrestricted abortion, which I thought your side loves.

cbe0241580c4e975b1f2e5639d50d8330d0a2475a06898e035cbf0fd6ac6e9ca.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually, the Democrats received a lot more money from rich donors in last year's mid-terms than did the Republicans, and the same held true in the 2012 Presidential election.

dem-donations.jpg
 
Pyromaneyakk said:
Obamacare was never meant to be the solution -- in fact most likely it was meant to make the problem worse, so bad that the only other option would be socialism. It's called the Cloward-Piven strategy.

And the system we have no has little to due with capitalism and everything to do with crony corporatism -- that is, instead of competition in a free market, we have corrupt politicians rigging the market so they can choose the winner. Moving to a socialist system will only make it worse as it will give government bureaucrats even more control over the systems they're already responsible for destroying.
Click to expand...

This.

The real problem with drug prices, is that the US pays payes for most the R&D, while the socialized medicine countries get a free ride at our expense. Since the companies can't sell the drugs direct in the countries, so they are stuck dealing with the governments, and force to give huge discounts to sell in those countries.

One solution would be to require companies to set the price for any drug sold in the US at no more than 10% over the average price it sold for elsewhere in the world. Sell it for more in the US, and you will be hit with excessive tax rates that would consume any profit.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
I don't doubt that poster's sincerity, but his post, replete with grammatical errors, was hardly well written, nor with its either-or fallacy was it well thought out.
Click to expand...

Lol, it's the thought that counts. He did actually put some effort into what he wrote. It seems you just want to rag on his post (and mine) for some reason.
 
Bigshrimp said:
Lol, it's the thought that counts. He did actually put some effort into what he wrote. It seems you just want to rag on his post (and mine) for some reason.
Click to expand...

Accusing anyone who votes for politicians that oppose Obamacare of being "a giant prick" doesn't qualify as well thought out in my book.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
6) Stops certain insurance plans from denying emergency service claims. This was largely aimed at certain HMO's who were notorious for denying out of network emergency claims just because someone got into an accident while on vacation.

Because people were so incapable of planning their vacations in compliance with their insurers' networks that the only solution was to call massa guv'mint in to punish those evil insurance companies for daring to choose hospitals based on criteria like Joint Commission accreditation or outcomes data. Might as well just do away with the whole concept of in-network and out-of-network hospitals and clinics altogether if the insurers aren't permitted to favor one over the other.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this one, as I have personal experience with this, when I have an accident while we where an hour away from home.

When you are laying on the ground unconscious, it's difficult to tell the emergency responders to wait while your call around and find a hospital and doctors that are "in plan".

It's also crazy how much some of the doctors attempt to charge. My insurance company paid the "normal and customary rate (based on an average of typical changes for the area), and the bill was something 2-3 times this rate.

Some states (like California) also have laws against balanced billing for emergency services. This means that the they can't come after you for the amount the insurance didn't pay, they can only ask the insurance company for more money. More states are passing these laws, but this should have been in the federal law.
One bill I received was from a physicians assistant for $2000 for 2 days. The 1st day was for them to write a single paragraph on what the Doctor did (Doctor's bill was separate), and there ware no notes on what they did the 2nd day. Insurance paid them about $900. In most states they could have come after me for the additional $1100.
 
Bigshrimp said:
Lol, it's the thought that counts. He did actually put some effort into what he wrote. It seems you just want to rag on his post (and mine) for some reason.
Click to expand...

I started to respond to his post, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized he doesn't know a damn thing about healthcare and insurance and is pretty much just being jackass.

He was correct though, my post was full of typos. I typed it in a hurry, but factually it is 100% accurate. As I said, I'm licensed in accident, health and life. I know the affordable care act and the changes it had quite a bit a better.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
In other words, it's unbelievable that people dissent when the establishment is liberal, but it is cool and counter-cultural to dissent when the establishment is conservative.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of cold hearted sons of bitches. Unlike most Americans, I don't think the world starts at California and ends at New York. Fact is we spend more money on drugs than any other country in the world, and by a large factor. Our government spends more money than any other country and we aren't even on universal health care.

If we got a similar health care system as Canada or UK everyone would be healthier and costs would go down. I care little about your pointless babel about liberals and Democrats vs Republicans. Our healthcare system is like the music industry, it's old and doesn't want to change its business model because they make far more money this way.

A commonly cited justification for unrestricted abortion, which I thought your side loves.
Click to expand...
That's stereotyping. Don't even know what side I'm on.

Actually, the Democrats received a lot more money from rich donors in last year's mid-terms than did the Republicans, and the same held true in the 2012 Presidential election.
Click to expand...
I wasn't pointing out Democrat vs Republican, just that in the end the rich don't have to worry about healthcare costs. If you're curious in how I feel about both parties I feel like it doesn't matter cause both sides are corrupt. As for why the rich "donate" more money to Democrats it's because they're too busy switching over to the winning team to Lobby in their interests.

We're too busy trying to keep government out but businesses are Lobbying government to get involved for their interests. Democrat vs Republican doesn't matter cause lobbying is gonna lobby.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
5)Insurance companies must now publicly justify rate hikes.

It is a great system that absolutely improved health insurance in the US. It has some flaws and yes it needs more work. However it isn't socialist, it isn't communist and it is a damn shame that people are letting their idiotic political beliefs blind them to this fact.

Just remember this boys and girls..Before the ACA came along, if you wanted health insurance after losing a job your only choice was COBRA. For those that this doesn't ring a bell, just know that most normal people couldn't this if they wanted to. Cobra Premiums are absolutely INSANE. Now you actually have choices for individual insurance that aren't going to break you financially if you aren't rich.
Click to expand...

The big problem with ACA (remember the promise that it would lower premiums by $2500/year) is that instead it raised premiums for most people. I now much higher deductibles, and I'm paying significantly more for the worse policy. The deductibles are going up a few thousand more again next year, so I'm going to have to switch to an HMO, so I don't end up broke if I have a major medical expense.

I was on Cobra years ago, any it was a lot cheaper than what I'm paying now. I also had private insurance for a while when I was between jobs, it was also cheaper than what I pay under ACA.

Now we have a congressman who wants to put the "undocumented" on ACA, and of course most of them will be heavily subsidized.

Just wait until the federal government stops providing all the subsidies to the states, and the states have to start supporting the full costs themselves. Can we say "Massive tax hikes"?
 
Ashbringer said:
If we got a similar health care system as Canada or UK everyone would be healthier and costs would go down.
Click to expand...

Cost may go down, but we would not be healthier.

Both those system lower costs by limiting care.

It's cheaper to delay treatment until the patent dies, than to provide expensive treatments.
That's once of the reasons many of the wealth people from Canada come to the US for medial treatment.
Like any socialized system, it results in poor service for anyone who can't afford to pay the premium to go outside the system.
 
Bigshrimp said:
I had a medication I needed for IBS and it was going to cost me $900. Can't believe the drug companies are allowed to gouge patients like this. But a lot of things are backwards in the USA. :(
Click to expand...
The US government is the one driving up the costs - not pharma. You can buy pills from India for pennies, because they let CAPITALISM do what it is supposed to do - make things affordable. FDA regulation prevents most drugs from ever making it to market. Then Obamacare added taxes onto the drug companies. If you want to assign blame, blame the government.
 
The United States is a ridiculously over-medicated nation as it is.
 
nutzo said:
Cost may go down, but we would not be healthier.

Both those system lower costs by limiting care.
Click to expand...
We rank lower than Canada. So yea there goes that theory.

TCFchart.png

It's cheaper to delay treatment until the patent dies, than to provide expensive treatments.
That's once of the reasons many of the wealth people from Canada come to the US for medial treatment.
Like any socialized system, it results in poor service for anyone who can't afford to pay the premium to go outside the system.
Click to expand...
Provide me some statistics not pulled from thin air. The reason it's cheaper is because those countries negotiate for lower prices for supplies and medications. Everything just costs more in USA. Lots of inefficiency in our health care system, BTW #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US is health related costs.
 
Ashbringer said:
I was thinking more of cold hearted sons of bitches. Unlike most Americans, I don't think the world starts at California and ends at New York.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who a few sentences later seems to be against stereotyping.

Fact is we spend more money on drugs than any other country in the world, and by a large factor. Our government spends more money than any other country and we aren't even on universal health care.
Click to expand...

The AFA was promoted as a method of providing universal health care, and spending more money on something than any other country in the world doesn't make it essential, otherwise pay television services (including premium cable and streaming services) should be a universal human right paid for by massa guv'mint.

If we got a similar health care system as Canada or UK everyone would be healthier and costs would go down.
Click to expand...

Dr. Timothy Evans, Executive Director of Public Affairs for the Independent Healthcare Association of Great Britain, has some noteworthy criticisms of Britain's nationalized healthcare and explains how they came about (see the sections of his lecture titled "Creation of the NHS" and "The Waiting Lists").

As for Canada, respected Canadian pollster Angus Reid conducted a survey in 2009-2010 which indicated that while a large majority (75-93%, depending on the territory) approve of their quality of health care at various levels (general practitioner, specialist, advanced diagnostic tests, and hospital stays), a lower percentage (48-67%) approved of their experiences at emergency rooms, and only 26-50% of Canadians approved of the maintenance and delivery of their health care services. In another survey conducted in 2010, it found that 40% of its repondents would pay out of pocket to bypass the typically long Canadian wait times (hence the disapproval of the delivery of its health care) and 42% would consider travelling to another country for quicker health care.

I care little about your pointless babel about liberals and Democrats vs Republicans. Our healthcare system is like the music industry, it's old and doesn't want to change its business model because they make far more money this way.
Click to expand...

Yet you advocate that the U.S. follow a model like Britain's 67 year old nationalized health care plan, or Canada's 31 year old model (which doesn't cover prescription drugs, incidentally), and I doubt that you favor changes made to those programs which steer people away from government dependency.

That's stereotyping.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who thinks that "most Americans . . . think the world starts at California and ends at New York."

Don't even know what side I'm on.
Click to expand...

At least on the subject of universal health care, you reveal a very liberal disposition, and talk like our current leftist Presidential candidates (Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden) on the issue.

I wasn't pointing out Democrat vs Republican, just that in the end the rich don't have to worry about healthcare costs.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of rich, and what experience do you have that makes you qualified to state what they do and don't worry about? Being able to afford something doesn't automatically render someone a spendthrift, and being poor doesn't necessarily mean someone is frugal.

If you're curious in how I feel about both parties I feel like it doesn't matter cause both sides are corrupt.
Click to expand...

Then I for one am glad you don't participate in the electoral process, as that would end up just increasing the chances of someone who believes as you do (the leftism that you deny) getting elected and affecting public policy.

As for why the rich "donate" more money to Democrats it's because they're too busy switching over to the winning team to Lobby in their interests.
Click to expand...

The winning team in the 2010 mid-terms was the Republican Party, actually.

We're too busy trying to keep government out but businesses are Lobbying government to get involved for their interests. Democrat vs Republican doesn't matter cause lobbying is gonna lobby.
Click to expand...

It is a sad state of affairs when a business has to participate in crony capitalism in order to remain solvent. Refusing to do so makes it vulnerable to competing businesses who seek an advantage over their competitors. Your answer as to how to reduce or eliminate it will further reveal your political disposition, though I suspect that it will confirm my ideological assessment.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It's fair and mainly because I'm not talking about ACA in it's initial incarnation. It had some problems at first, which is why even many Dems weren't on board. However most of those issues got worked out early and then it turned into a Reb stonewall mess. Now do bear in mind that I pretty much think both parties are full of pathetic scumbags, so I am in no way defending the dems here. However reality was when it came to ACA, it was a good plan and could of been amazing had both parties been more concerned with the American people and not "how much can we dick over the other party".

Some of the provisions in ACA even after all the mess are downright amazing and they constantly get glossed over because people still want to play the political bullshit game. Hell, some GOP candidates are STILL claiming they will repeal it if they get in office, Not work on improving it, but repeal it. That should be a giant red flag to anyhow who isn't a giant asshole. It isn't socialism to look out for the health of your nations citizens. There is a middle ground where insurance companies (I work for one), can profit and citizens can expect reasonable healthcare.So Since I am on the topic, let me point out a few highlights that people either don't know, or ignore.

First This idea that small employers are "Required" to pay for healthcare for their employees is utter bunk. They aren't. So we can just throw that out the window now. Small employers now simply have More options that allows them to offer insurance at prices they couldn't before if they so choose.

The big penalty that everyone is clamoring about isn't what everyone seems to think. That penalty is the exact same cost as the lowest priced coverage available as an individual. Additionally if your income falls below a certain threshold where you can't afford it, then there are provisions where the premiums will be subsidized or cover the cost entirely. This allows people who are working multiple part time jobs to actually afford insurance where they couldn't before. As a Very important note, this also put a stop to the past where if you had to have medicade, then you basically had to sell everything you owned. So basically the only way you get hit with any penalty is if you are pretty much a dumbass. There are of course exemptions for religion, Native americans etc. The short of it is, If you can't afford insurance you aren't going to be penalized, you are going to get what you need. On no planet is that ever a bad thing.

Other Provisions that the ACA brought in that were badly needed.
1) Ends Pre Existing Condition Exclusions for Children. This was HUGE and people just gloss over it. This put an absolute stop to insurance refusing to cover children because of pre existing conditions.

2) It added provisions for Young adults to be allowed to be covered on their parents plan up to age 26. Basically they can stay covered this way while in college instead of having to page huge rates for their own policy while not employed.

3) Guaranteed rights to appeal a denied payment.

4) A Near Complete Ban on lifetime benefit limits, meaning your insurance company can no longer say "Nope, we aren't covering your heart condition you developed after years of paying us because that is too expensive".

5)Insurance companies must now publicly justify rate hikes.

6) Stops certain insurance plans from denying emergency service claims. This was largely aimed at certain HMO's who were notorious for denying out of network emergency claims just because someone got into an accident while on vacation.

There are quite a bit more as well, especially in regards to preventative care and pregnancy. There is also quite a bit of stupid in it as well, it isn't perfect. The basic idea though is that Young people and Old people especially should be able to see reasonable healthcare without being bankrupted. Additionally Working adults should have a reasonable expectation of being able to afford basic healthcare and shouldn't fear an unknown health issue or an Accident ruining you financially forever. I think the short of it is this; Any person who votes for a candidate who supports repealing ACA instead of continuing to make it better, really is a giant prick. There is absolutely ZERO reason outside political BS to be against the ACA. It is a great system that absolutely improved health insurance in the US. It has some flaws and yes it needs more work. However it isn't socialist, it isn't communist and it is a damn shame that people are letting their idiotic political beliefs blind them to this fact.

Just remember this boys and girls..Before the ACA came along, if you wanted health insurance after losing a job your only choice was COBRA. For those that this doesn't ring a bell, just know that most normal people couldn't this if they wanted to. Cobra Premiums are absolutely INSANE. Now you actually have choices for individual insurance that aren't going to break you financially if you aren't rich.
Click to expand...

There were some pluses, but a whole lot of new negatives. I use to have an insurance plan through Blue Cross/ Blue Shield that had $1000 deductible and 80/20 with a $5000 dollar cap. Doctor office visits cost me $25 dollars and a free wellness check up once a year.
As soon as Obama care went into effect, our insurance plan was going to end up costing the employee $410 a month for the family plan to keep it, I work for a local government agency and in MI all government is regulated on how much they can pay of your insurance. That was an increase of over 4x what we use to pay. We were paying $103 dollars a month for the family plan.
We ended up having to switch to an Obama Care approved plan. It now cost us $4000 dollars before insurance even kicks in, and then we have another $8000 to go before our max. It is costing me $120 dollars a month for this shitty insurance. What little pluses we obtained doesn't offset the huge negatives we were given. Obama Care is there just to help make the insurance and pharmaceutical companies richer.
If Obama Care would of regulated the cost right from the get go, then it could of been a decent program.I am sure someone working for the insurance companies likes it because it brought a whole lot of new money in, RAISES EVERYONE.
 
dcds1 said:
There were some pluses, but a whole lot of new negatives. I use to have an insurance plan through Blue Cross/ Blue Shield that had $1000 deductible and 80/20 with a $5000 dollar cap. Doctor office visits cost me $25 dollars and a free wellness check up once a year.
As soon as Obama care went into effect, our insurance plan was going to end up costing the employee $410 a month for the family plan to keep it, I work for a local government agency and in MI all government is regulated on how much they can pay of your insurance. That was an increase of over 4x what we use to pay. We were paying $103 dollars a month for the family plan.
We ended up having to switch to an Obama Care approved plan. It now cost us $4000 dollars before insurance even kicks in, and then we have another $8000 to go before our max. It is costing me $120 dollars a month for this shitty insurance. What little pluses we obtained doesn't offset the huge negatives we were given. Obama Care is there just to help make the insurance and pharmaceutical companies richer.
If Obama Care would of regulated the cost right from the get go, then it could of been a decent program.I am sure someone working for the insurance companies likes it because it brought a whole lot of new money in, RAISES EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

Remember the bit where I said there were problems? This was one of them. Some people are paying more. At the end of the day though, some people paying more is better than a whole lot of people having no coverage at all. Do remember that I said it was "Better" than what we as a country had before, not that it was perfect. It has already been pointed out that they botched a good idea up pretty badly.

One of the key problems is that people who fell into the "paying' brackets were improperly educated or not educated at all about their options. The reality is the days of being able to have a single Major Medical policy (Blue Cross, Blue Shield for ex) and expect it to cover everything with little out of pocket cost are gone. The system is trying to force people to use the ecosphere as a whole and combine, Major medical, basic medical, Supplemental and FSA/HSA. Done right, in many circumstances you can end up with a very similar outlay of premiums and have at least equal coverage. Again and I stress, there are exceptions the system needs work, not to be scrapped. You don't burn the whole bank down just because the ATM ate your card. Really in this instance you need to talk to an insurance agent who is licensed in your state. They can help you navigate the complexities and find a solution that works for you. Specifically find a broker who represents a number of different companies, as they are working for your best interest, not the insurers.

I honestly could go on quite a bit about it as there is a monumental amount of information to work with and misunderstanding of how it works. However I didn't show up to do a lecture on it, just to point out that the ACA is very misunderstood thanks to the media. Overall it was a necessary step for the US and stop pushing the socialist propaganda bullshit, that just makes you look like a buffoon.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
The amount of ignorance in this thread concerning the affordable care act is pretty astounding. I just recently got my accident, health and life insurance license and had to learn the aca inside out. Despite its flaws, it is in general overwhelmingly better than the previous system which had people with zero health coverage and being forced to sell everything they owned just because they got sick. The things people are mad about with the higher deductibles and such, you can thank the GOP and their adamant refusal to compromise because they liked bankrupting people for drugs. Sorry to burst your little delusional bubble, but almost all the problems with the ACA are the fault of republicans. But like I said, it's still better than what it was before.
Click to expand...

Heh.....haha....LOL. The wolf telling the sheep what's good for them. Love it.

Look, I work in healthcare. We support over 500 providers nationwide. I can tell you the ACA had little or nothing to do with insurance and more to do with bankrupting small, independent 1 doc practices. The ACA gave birth to ACO's in order to reduce costs. Thanks to the ACA small 1 doc practices expenses went up about 175%. But wait, it gets better. The more they implement IDC10 and MU stage 2 and 3 we'll see more small practices close their doors. You know, the ones where poorer people went for their healthcare because the cost was less than a larger health system network.

You sell insurance. You're probably the least qualified person to speak about the effects of the ACA in regards to the healthcare system as whole.
 
HydroBudz said:
Heh.....haha....LOL. The wolf telling the sheep what's good for them. Love it.

Look, I work in healthcare. We support over 500 providers nationwide. I can tell you the ACA had little or nothing to do with insurance and more to do with bankrupting small, independent 1 doc practices. The ACA gave birth to ACO's in order to reduce costs. Thanks to the ACA small 1 doc practices expenses went up about 175%. But wait, it gets better. The more they implement IDC10 and MU stage 2 and 3 we'll see more small practices close their doors. You know, the ones where poorer people went for their healthcare because the cost was less than a larger health system network.

You sell insurance. You're probably the least qualified person to speak about the effects of the ACA in regards to the healthcare system as whole.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: ok bub. Good to know you don't know the differences in insurance agents and who different groups represent.
 
nutzo said:
Cost may go down, but we would not be healthier.

Both those system lower costs by limiting care.

It's cheaper to delay treatment until the patent dies, than to provide expensive treatments.
That's once of the reasons many of the wealth people from Canada come to the US for medial treatment.
Like any socialized system, it results in poor service for anyone who can't afford to pay the premium to go outside the system.
Click to expand...

The terribly funny part...either ignored or which you are ignorant about...Even if what you said preceding it was true your final statement is more true for the USA than any country on Earth.

You need a hip replacement. The replacement hip in a bag costs $30,000 here. Why? Because the mega-corporations that make the part can charge that much. Just like a single drug pill's price can be changed from $10/pill to $800/pill because the CEO is a jackass. In any other socialized medicine country on Earth it costs hundreds. If you need a hip replacement, as a medical tourist, your costs after all and said is done will be about 1/10th what they are in the USA including airfare round trip.
 
What always confuses me is the following:

Doctor prescribes medication X @$100 per refill.
Patient says they cannot afford medication X, calls insurance/doctor's office, they ask patient how much they are "comfortable" paying.
Patient ends up paying $15 for medication X, but another patient who does not question the price pays the full $100.

Who pays the difference? It makes the whole pricing seem completely arbitrary...
This exact scenario has happened to me about 2-4 times in the last year alone, and I've heard similar stories from others.

Also, hospital stay bills are always artificially inflated due to doctor's "taking" care of you, aka coming in for 2 seconds when the shift changes, checking your heartbeat and charging ~$250 for that afterwards. Once again, you can call their office once you get the bill and 9/10 times the bills are dropped completely. This has nothing to do with income, I could easily afford the medical bills, but I am given the option and without any real "push" from my side to not pay the full amount or a reduced amount. Can anyone explain this? How does this make any sense?
 
schoolslave said:
What always confuses me is the following:

Doctor prescribes medication X @$100 per refill.
Patient says they cannot afford medication X, calls insurance/doctor's office, they ask patient how much they are "comfortable" paying.
Patient ends up paying $15 for medication X, but another patient who does not question the price pays the full $100.

Who pays the difference? It makes the whole pricing seem completely arbitrary...
This exact scenario has happened to me about 2-4 times in the last year alone, and I've heard similar stories from others.

Also, hospital stay bills are always artificially inflated due to doctor's "taking" care of you, aka coming in for 2 seconds when the shift changes, checking your heartbeat and charging ~$250 for that afterwards. Once again, you can call their office once you get the bill and 9/10 times the bills are dropped completely. This has nothing to do with income, I could easily afford the medical bills, but I am given the option and without any real "push" from my side to not pay the full amount or a reduced amount. Can anyone explain this? How does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

The problem with hospital stays....NO ONE in the patient care area has any fcking clue what stuff costs the patient, new and young or long-time professional. Not the doctors or nurses or equipment inventory people.

No one.

My Old Man needed a hip replacement due to a bike crash (otherwise incredibly fit for his age). In the hospital the nurses and staff post-op offered him various amenities and when he politely asked, they admitted they had no clue what it would cost him nor did their supervisors...basically the only people in the entire building who knew what a cup-to-pee-in would cost are the billing accountants who will make sure you pay later.
 
Sorry but the "Affordable" Care Act is still a joke.
It does nothing to address actual affordability.
A major accident or illness is still a financially ruinous event for millions of people DESPITE being forced to shell out (relatively) large sums for insurance.

You get someone on minimum wage, they're shelling out a larger proportion of their salary for health care, even economizing by getting the cheapest plan they can get. So, shit happens and they now STILL have an outrageous deductible that they can't cover.

That being said, the ACA has done good things for some people. The reduction of exclusions has made it possible for several people I know to actually pick up insurance that actually covers prescriptions and the like, where they were paying vast sums out-of-pocket previously, as pretty much every carrier denied them.
 
American healthcare is the most expensive and the poorest quality in the developed world. That's crony capitalism for you.
 
Skripka said:
The problem with hospital stays....NO ONE in the patient care area has any fcking clue what stuff costs the patient, new and young or long-time professional. Not the doctors or nurses or equipment inventory people.

No one.

My Old Man needed a hip replacement due to a bike crash (otherwise incredibly fit for his age). In the hospital the nurses and staff post-op offered him various amenities and when he politely asked, they admitted they had no clue what it would cost him nor did their supervisors...basically the only people in the entire building who knew what a cup-to-pee-in would cost are the billing accountants who will make sure you pay later.
Click to expand...

This is a large part of the problem.
Imagine if you took your car in for service, and they couldn't give you an estimate on what the repair cost would be.
If it was like the medical system, you would take your car in, they would decide what needed to be done, and then you would get a bill you had to pay. Imagine how much more expensive car repairs would be.
 
Bigshrimp said:
I had a medication I needed for IBS and it was going to cost me $900. Can't believe the drug companies are allowed to gouge patients like this. But a lot of things are backwards in the USA. :(
Click to expand...

Are the drug companies gouging us? How much does that drug cost to produce, and how much revenue did it generate? They claim their average markup is 100% and they are realizing on average a net profit across the industry of less than 20%, and that 20% line is pretty verifiable. If the markup is huge, what expense is it going to?

Even so, that looks like small fry compared to my local ER billing me $100 for 600mg of ibuprofen. It STILL looks like small fry when you see that my insurance paid them $30 for something that is literally pennies OTC. The markup on an adhesive bandage was similarly insane. X-rays even compared to going into a dedicated place with an appointment were 3x as much and insurance paid out twice what they normally would to a dedicated place.

It gets even worse when you look at my local ER vs one a few towns over. I wound up going to both for the same issue over the course of 36 hours. The local one billed over $7500 for 2 hours in a bed, an EKG, a liquid antacid with lidocaine, a generic OTC antacid and generic OTC NSIAD both orally. They performed jack shit in terms of proper diagnostics and insurance paid out about $6800 of their claim. To make it extra awesome, they took 3 hours to get me in a bed with nobody else in the ER. Their diagnostic was that I must have gall stones and to see a specialist. No medication or instructions were provided upon release other than to see my GP.

The other ER got me in a bed in about 2 hours with a busy ER, had me occupying that bed for 12 hours. They did the same EKG and liquid antacid test. Hit me up with protonix and a serious prescription NSAID intravenously. They also did an ultrasound to actually verify if I had gall stones, which I didn't. I left with a 30 day prescription of nexium in hand dietary instructions, and a referral to a gastroenterologist. Their bill was $3200 of which insurance paid $3200.


I'm not saying pharma doesn't have issues, but they aren't the primary source of insanity in medical costs.
 
Skripka said:
The terribly funny part...either ignored or which you are ignorant about...Even if what you said preceding it was true your final statement is more true for the USA than any country on Earth.

You need a hip replacement. The replacement hip in a bag costs $30,000 here. Why? Because the mega-corporations that make the part can charge that much. Just like a single drug pill's price can be changed from $10/pill to $800/pill because the CEO is a jackass. In any other socialized medicine country on Earth it costs hundreds. If you need a hip replacement, as a medical tourist, your costs after all and said is done will be about 1/10th what they are in the USA including airfare round trip.
Click to expand...

I've been in the hospital 2x in the past year, so I have a little experience with the US medial system and insurance.
You quote a $30,000 price, but that's not what most people pay. One of my hospital bills was over $100K, but after it was "adjusted" with the insurance company discount it was only $22K. Most other businesses give a discount for cash customers, but the only way to get a good discount on medical bills is to have an insurance company that negotiated a good rate.

Still find it interesting how many people from Canada come to the US for elective surgery when Canada's medical system is supposed to be so good.
 
Ashbringer said:
We rank lower than Canada. So yea there goes that theory.

TCFchart.png
Click to expand...

The key takeaway from this chart is the absolute last row. Health Expenditures/Capita. Look who leads the pack there. Health Care in the United States is a FOR PROFIT business. Health Care in the United States isn't about making people better.

I'm trying to figure out what the Healthy Lives row means, but I presume that's the health care/quality of health quotient. Look at the countries that manage their costs well while handling the expectations of "average" health care topping that list.
 
nutzo said:
I've been in the hospital 2x in the past year, so I have a little experience with the US medial system and insurance.
You quote a $30,000 price, but that's not what most people pay. One of my hospital bills was over $100K, but after it was "adjusted" with the insurance company discount it was only $22K. Most other businesses give a discount for cash customers, but the only way to get a good discount on medical bills is to have an insurance company that negotiated a good rate.

Still find it interesting how many people from Canada come to the US for elective surgery when Canada's medical system is supposed to be so good.
Click to expand...

A few things about replacement joints.

1) The companies that design and make them are all based in the USA
2) Those companies are billion-dollar medical companies that won their own golf courses
3) Newer replacement hip designs have a FAR FAR higher rate of failure than old designs. If you ever need a replacement hip, your docwill probably strongly advise against anything designed in the last 10 years.
4) People have researched this...the cost to R&D and manufacture a new replacement hip is about $300USD each

Now that $300 hip joint is marketed to USA hospitals...who are heavily lobbied into exclusive-monopolistic-deals on the grounds of utter secrecy of what deal they are getting versus what another hospital in the same area get. The doctors are bribed heavily with perks and free training and seminars, but ultimately they are ignorant about the deals stuck. Typically that replacement hip that cost $300 to make is sold in volume to hospitals at $4-5000USD.

Now that hip that suddenly is 10X+ as valuable is resold to the patient at whatever the hospital wants to charge, typically $15,000 at a minimum....Which is 50X what it cost to make. And that is just the joint in a sterilized bag, that doesn't cover or address any of the costs associated with putting it inside a human being...which typicall add up to $100,000 in cash all out of pocket between OR fees, surgeon's fees, recovery, and so on.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
Dr. Timothy Evans, Executive Director of Public Affairs for the Independent Healthcare Association of Great Britain, has some noteworthy criticisms of Britain's nationalized healthcare and explains how they came about (see the sections of his lecture titled "Creation of the NHS" and "The Waiting Lists").

As for Canada, respected Canadian pollster Angus Reid conducted a survey in 2009-2010 which indicated that while a large majority (75-93%, depending on the territory) approve of their quality of health care at various levels (general practitioner, specialist, advanced diagnostic tests, and hospital stays), a lower percentage (48-67%) approved of their experiences at emergency rooms, and only 26-50% of Canadians approved of the maintenance and delivery of their health care services. In another survey conducted in 2010, it found that 40% of its repondents would pay out of pocket to bypass the typically long Canadian wait times (hence the disapproval of the delivery of its health care) and 42% would consider travelling to another country for quicker healthcare.
Click to expand...

Calling out posters for using fallacious arguments...and then doing the same thing yourself. Not a good look.

You are presenting statistics in a vacuum. Until there is some comparative analysis across countries, those stats up there are meaningless. There are numerous studies from other publications that compare health care services across countries, and though wait times might be longer in more socialized systems, they still tend to be far more efficient, and cheaper, than the US system.
 
MrTryfe said:
Calling out posters for using fallacious arguments...and then doing the same thing yourself. Not a good look.
Click to expand...

The pollster I cited is apolitical and the survey results were mostly in support (except in maintenance and delivery of health care) of the Canadian socialist health care system of which I'm so critical. It's not like I looked for and cited from a more selective survey from a more partisan source.

You are presenting statistics in a vacuum. Until there is some comparative analysis across countries, those stats up there are meaningless. There are numerous studies from other publications
Click to expand...

Weasel words ("numerous studies from other publications") do not a logical argument make.

that compare health care services across countries, and though wait times might be longer in more socialized systems, they still tend to be far more efficient, and cheaper, than the US system.
Click to expand...

Long wait times are a sign of inefficiency, but as I pointed out earlier, overall most Canadians are satisfied with their quality of health care once they finally get treated.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
The pollster I cited is apolitical and the survey results were mostly in support (except in maintenance and delivery of health care) of the Canadian socialist health care system of which I'm so critical. It's not like I looked for and cited from a more selective survey from a more partisan source.


Long wait times are a sign of inefficiency, but as I pointed out earlier, overall most Canadians are satisfied with their quality of health care once they finally get treated.
Click to expand...

Your initial response containing that apolitical survey was directed towards this statement from another poster:

If we got a similar health care system as Canada or UK everyone would be healthier and costs would go down.
Click to expand...

Of what purpose does that survey serve in relation to the above statement? The above statement is comparing across three different regions: The US, the UK, and Canada. Your survey focuses only on Canada, and as such, offers no comparative analysis. It doesn't disprove that poster's point, either.

Of course, that doesn't mean Canada doesn't have some issues, as those longer wait times indicate. However, longer wait times aren't the only indicator of inefficiency. To imply such a thing is laughable. If your whole argument is based off of longer wait times in more socialist health care systems, then you clearly haven't taken a look at countries like the UK and Netherlands, where long wait times are rarely an issue.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-more-efficient-than-the-one-in-the-u-s-study

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-wait-times-up-to-3-times-longer-in-canada-1.2663013

Accusing someone of using "weasel words" when your own arguments offer up nothing substantial is pretty rich.
 
Ashbringer said:
We rank lower than Canada. So yea there goes that theory.

TCFchart.png


Provide me some statistics not pulled from thin air. The reason it's cheaper is because those countries negotiate for lower prices for supplies and medications. Everything just costs more in USA. Lots of inefficiency in our health care system, BTW #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US is health related costs.
Click to expand...

Fucking lol at anyone who looks at this and comes to any other conclusion than that our healthcare system is expensive garbage and basically of third world quality.
 
Galvin said:
Wasn't that suppose to be the purpose of Obama care health care for all?
Click to expand...

The real purpose of Obamacare was to get people to pay for healthcare by making it illegal not to, and, of course, be able to say that now we have universal healthcare. Now hospitals and drug companies can continue to charge outrageous costs, and those prices will continue to escalate faster than inflation just as they have for the last 30 or so years. This way big business healthcare, big business pharmaceuticals, doctors, etc. will get paid. But there's drastic step in the prices. I called last May to see what healthcare would cost me if I only made $28,000. I was told that I could get a policy for about $140 a month. Later I tried again with a salary of $35,000. The cost quickly jumped to $560 a month; about 1/5 of my gross salary. Essentially every extra dollar I made would go directly to medical insurance. Add the deductible and it's even worse. But it's so good to know that the healthcare executives and drug company managers will all get nice fat bonuses, stock options, and salary increases on a regular basis again. Not to mention the politicians who will get a nice kickback or all expense paid trips to Tahiti for 'consultations' about their products use in the good ole', U.S.A..
 
brentsg said:
It's such a cluster fuck. My wife's meds are a couple grand a month. We have a high deductible plan, so we just pay out like a mofo until we hit our max out of pocket a handful of months into the year.

To make it even more ridiculous, they won't even pay for the dosage she's prescribed at those prices. She has to accept pills that are too large and cut them with a razor. It's criminal.

Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

Cutting pills isn't a big deal. When I had no insurance, that's exactly what I did, because 2x the prescribed dose cost the same amount (within a dollar or 2).

I don't know what your deductible is, but if you have 2grand/month in meds, you'll be over your deductable in roughly 3 months. If I read the comparisons correctly, in some plans, you stop paying for drugs after that (and as I recall that was one of the cheaper bronze plans. Of course all of this varies by state.
 
Ashbringer said:
It's unbelievable what people think. You're putting a price on your life and one you couldn't possibly pay. If you get sick, like real sick, like Alzheimer's or Parkinson’s disease at a young age then you couldn't afford it. It can happen, cause aging isn't the same for everyone. Due to genes your cells can break down really fast and develop these problems early in life like at 30 years old.

You can't afford it cause that Titan-X graphics with Intel 6700K was just too tempting at the time, plus you upgrade that PC every year. Can't go bellow 60FPS at 4k max settings. Then you get Alzheimer's at 30 and no big deal the insurance company will take care of you. Except they don't and dump your ass. You're old. Die already.

It's too bad too cause SENS Research just developed a cure for Mitochondrial aging which is the main cause of Alzheimer's. Even if you had insurance they wouldn't use the treatment on you cause it's too new and expensive. You have defective genes, time to die.

cbe0241580c4e975b1f2e5639d50d8330d0a2475a06898e035cbf0fd6ac6e9ca.jpg
Click to expand...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top