gag's shit was chocolate pie!
Americans have suffered for decades with "for profit" health insurance companies by:
1. denied coverage due to some pre-existing conditions.
2. dropped from coverage when a catastrophic illness occurs
3. annual limits on benefits
4. annual increase in premiums
It is scary to read what these companies can still do harmful things to Americans.
The best solution is to get these companies out of the health care market and go with nationalized health care like in Canada, Europe, Australia etc., The coverage starts when a baby is born! What is wrong with that?
with Corporate polytheism. Any policy or practice that does not enrich the Corporate ideal is considered heresy and blasphemy.
Statism has become religion to those who think if we grow the power and influence of government we will have utopia on earth.
Way back in 1970's, India nationalized all commercial banks and insurance companies which snuffed out "for profit" influence. They never had a banking crisis or insurance crisis since that time. They also mandated all foreign multinationals to give 49% ownership to locals to invest. Guest what happened.
. IBM closed its operation only to return 15 years later and now has thousands employed.
. Microsoft, Intel, Google, Yahoo, Target, HP, Siemens, Colgate, Proctor & Gamble, Siemens, Sony, Toyota, Honda are all grounded solid and making $$millions in a fast growing economy.
. Government controls drug prices to ensure it is affordable to the millions who need it. So what they have? Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble all divested 49% to local investors, their stocks listed on the BSE and are paying 75% stock dividends and employee benefits that will make Americans gasp for breath. These companies make and market the same drugs that cost an arm and a leg in USA but a fraction of it in India.
No gloom and doom happened with State take over of Banks, Insurance companies, price control over drugs and mandating MNC's divest 49% locally.
Is it time to have a second guess at the capitalism as it is here in US? Yes I think for sure
. IBM closed its operation only to return 15 years later and now has thousands employed.
. Microsoft, Intel, Google, Yahoo, Target, HP, Siemens, Colgate, Proctor & Gamble, Siemens, Sony, Toyota, Honda are all grounded solid and making $$millions in a fast growing economy.
. Government controls drug prices to ensure it is affordable to the millions who need it. So what they have? Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble all divested 49% to local investors, their stocks listed on the BSE and are paying 75% stock dividends and employee benefits that will make Americans gasp for breath. These companies make and market the same drugs that cost an arm and a leg in USA but a fraction of it in India.
No gloom and doom happened with State take over of Banks, Insurance companies, price control over drugs and mandating MNC's divest 49% locally.
Is it time to have a second guess at the capitalism as it is here in US? Yes I think for sure.
You Nailed it.
How stupid can you be to make a statement and not explain? Damn!
gag's shit was chocolate pie!
Canada, GB, France, and other countries are really not too far from the U.S.
In all countries there is a set minimum that the state provides, covering serious conditions. However, in those countries, as here, if you want more than the set minimum you pay for it, which is why many people pay privately for health care.
There is a phrase "Going private." That is their phrase that they use. There is also insurance to help pay the costs of going private for big things.
That is why many people come to the U.S. for hip replacements and things like that.
Just for fun, google "breast cancer survival rates international" and compare breast cancer survival rates in the U.S. and Great Britain.
Canada and other European countries have nationalized health care that covers each and everyone of their citizens. They also have private insurance for those who can afford it to get more coverage and treatment.
In an emergency and life threatening situation, everyone gets treated irrespective of whether the person has private insurance or not.
So no one is left hanging and scratching their heads where to go and how to pay. Look at Florida where I live. There are an estimated 3 million who are below the Federal Poverty Line and are denied Medicaid by the State's Republicans! I have seen people going to ER to get Tylenol, flu shots and any other treatment they get, they walk away. Guess who picks up the tab. Those who have health insurance and end up in hospitals.
In emergency and life threatening situations, everyone in the US get treatment regardless of insurance or money.
I had a friend who worked part time to pursue a career in acting, so she never had health insurance. Her apartment was burnt down in an arson case and she was terribly burned. SHe was taken to the same hospital that Richard Pryor was taken to, and she was cared for for 3 months until she got out. Her post hospital care was covered 100%.
I discovered rather dramatically that I am allergic to bees. I went to the emergency room and they treated me, after which they asked if I had insurance.
I could give 1,000 examples.
If any of the people you refer to in Florida has a heart attack or is hit by a car on the street they will recieve treatment.
Insurance should not cover tylenol or flu shots. Insurance should not be for inexpensive routine matters which are cheaper if the individual or charity pay
Google life expectancy rates of the various nations that have socialized health care and the USA. Google infant mortality rates among the same nations. Google health care outcomes among those same nations. Google health care costs among those same nations. I'm sure all of us here will be quite anxious to see what you find on this Phil!
Prior to the ACA, there was a phrase here in the USA as well if you happened to get sick. It was called "going bankrupt".
Here's some reading for ya!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/health-outcomes-report-cards-by-country/
It just not true. Canada has excellent care for necessary treatment. Basically the same level of care most insurance plans in the US would pay for.
Could not agree more for the accuracy of the health care system in Canada. It is customary for ignorant Americans to criticize anything that does not look like what they have.
If what I said is not true, why do they use the phrase "going private."
If they get all they need as if they had insurance, why do many people still buy insurance.
You may think they have the same thing, but unless you can explain why people come here or why they buy insurance or why the have private doctors not covered by national health, you are ignoring reality
For example, in Canada people can buy private health insurance. They rarely do. Private insurance is often used for elective surgeries like boob jobs and face lifts. Canadians also will buy private insurance when traveling to the USA in order to stay covered. Rich people do sometimes come to the USA for certain procedures, but that's because they're rich and they can afford it. They also go to other countries as well, like France and Germany.
But the facts speak for themselves.
First, you can't explain away the fact that they have the expression "going private." Language reflects society.
Also, it is not boob jobs and things like that. Those are not covered by insurance HERE or anywhere.
Even in the U.S. private insurance doesn't cover "voluntary" cosmetic. I paid for my lasar surgery on my eyes and everyone I know did.
By definition, that is not a contingency, and is not insurable.
Canadians who have private insruance and not just those coming to the U.S. It is a very significant number. Se the following:
But the facts speak for themselves.
The planners of our present system have a long term plan to implement a single payer system for all healthcare. If their course is followed I'm sure we will end up with a dual system of public and private delivery and payment (insurance). Our present system has two primary goals at the present.
1) provide additional coverage to 10 or 15 million at the bottom.
2) Eventually and slowly piss off the middle so they come around to agreeing with you and Jeff to finally morph the present system in "a universal" solution.
Of all those places you listed do you realized that only England has a nationalized system such as you described? Where the government runs the entire payment and delivery system, where insurance (payment) and doctors and hospitals are all employed by the government. This is the same model as the USA Veterans Administration healthcare. How's that working out for us? BTW, even in England there is a dual system of sorts that offers a private choice to the more well off.
All the others have a mix of public and private enterprise. One more thing. All the others have their own version of rationing healthcare. At least with a hybrid system there is someone to appeal to. When there is only government telling you no, who are you going to complain to?
which provides turn key healthcare to active duty military - as well as the President. By most accounts I have read, the system as a whole functions about as well as civilian hospitals in terms of the quality of care provided. And there is plenty of accountability – after the Walter Reed scandal in 2007, a lot of people were fired and the neglected wings of the hospital purportedly were clean up.
There is still plenty of malpractice in the system, as the NY Times exposed this year, but not appreciably more than in the civilian sector. Of course, active duty guys can’t sue, so that skews the numbers but on balance this health care system seems to function reasonably well, unlike the poorly managed and separate VA system.
So if you choose to take the profit motive out of health care and make it an entitlement, it can be done as the Military Health System demonstrates. The only other alternative (please not the Republican health care plan again ) that actually works is Obamacare, where profit is allowed but effectively is regulated, and the cost of the health care system is spread among the patients, the insurer, the doctors, and the tax payers- all who benefit from the system
The DOD military healthcare system doesn't have to deal with the protections that unions provide to a vast majority of the VA healthcare workers and employees.
I've never studied the efficiency of the DOD healthcare delivery system. I've always stated they (DOD) are very EFFECTIVE at doing their primary job (killing people and breaking things), but just very INEFFICIENT in doing so. I can't help thinking the same applies to their healthcare.