Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Please keep it simple 
Simply how does it work or not ?
Simply how does it work or not ?
American Health care.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
severnside gull
Well-known member
If you can afford it you pay via insurance
if you can't afford insurance you don't get treated
some hospitals will take charity cases in a non-emergency but normally they need to see your insurance before treating you.
life or death cases get treated and argue/sue for costs afterwards
good system if the majority are in employment and while premiums are at a reasonable level.
bad system when unemployment rises and insurance premiums increase (in part as a direct result)
if you can't afford insurance you don't get treated
some hospitals will take charity cases in a non-emergency but normally they need to see your insurance before treating you.
life or death cases get treated and argue/sue for costs afterwards
good system if the majority are in employment and while premiums are at a reasonable level.
bad system when unemployment rises and insurance premiums increase (in part as a direct result)
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
The Democrats want universal healthcare, where everyone gets treated regardless of their means like in the UK, paid for through taxation rather than insurance premiums. Those who could afford the best health care would still pay for it in much the same way as they do currently, but a portion of their tax bill would now go towards providing a health service for many who now get very little.
The Republicans oppose this on the grounds that it would largely be the rich subsidising the poor, they argue that this situation is not sustainable. This stance comes under criticism from those who maintain that it is a far greater burden on the nation to have sick people out of work and claiming the dole, rather than getting them fit and back to work again.
I know that this is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at the issue, but surely providing the most basic healthcare for your population shouldn't be difficult...should it?
The Republicans oppose this on the grounds that it would largely be the rich subsidising the poor, they argue that this situation is not sustainable. This stance comes under criticism from those who maintain that it is a far greater burden on the nation to have sick people out of work and claiming the dole, rather than getting them fit and back to work again.
I know that this is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at the issue, but surely providing the most basic healthcare for your population shouldn't be difficult...should it?
you doubt the amount of moolah insurance companies have to convince certain politicians what the people really want. there is medicare for over 65s which is really poor and doesn't cover everything. also there are certain programs for disabled people and children, usually you have to be in deep poverty to qualify.
surrey jim
Not in Surrey
Watch Michael Moore's film 'Sicko'
Ok it is his typical 'hate the usa' type film but shows the difference between the heatth system in UK/France/Usa /Canada
Ok it is his typical 'hate the usa' type film but shows the difference between the heatth system in UK/France/Usa /Canada
Please keep it simple
You take out health insurance. Like with most insurances there are lots of levels, and lots of clauses. Pay your regular premiums (monthly, quarterly, whatever).
If you need treatment you need your health insurance to complete admittance forms (if not conscious/unable to complete them and no one to complete them for you, you'll be treated and will have to complete the forms later).
You then have to hope that the treatment is covered by your policy. Like a lot of insurance companies, health insurance companies like to avoid paying out where they can, so will use excuses to void your coverage (the ambulance wasn't pre-approved by them, this instance was caused by a previous condition, etc).
You don't have to have insurance. You can just pay straight out of your own pocket. This is a problem for small busines owners/self employed people, because often people save on a monthly outlay for health insurance thinking they could save and use the savings if needed, then get injured and find they don't have enough, and can't afford to take the time off work.
For indigent people there is medicare/medicaid, which is a government financed insurance company for poor people, but that isn't something that has a lot of money to spread around. I'm not sure how limited it is, but the medicair/medicaid system is reported to be in serious danger of going bust in a few years, which is why some people get frustrated by the republican argument that "we don't need a new health care system to cover the poor, we have medicare".
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #10
OK,so me being 'Joe Public' have taken out health insurance are there levels of treatment, the more you pay the more cover you get ? What are the costs ? What if you have a long-term health issue i/e Stroke/Eye sight problems etc.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
I believe measures have been taken to stop that sort of practice.
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
Leekbrook
You might find that a lot of insurance companies wouldn't touch you with a barge-pole, or charge such high premiums that your pay-cheque might as well go straight to them and not your bank!
You might find that a lot of insurance companies wouldn't touch you with a barge-pole, or charge such high premiums that your pay-cheque might as well go straight to them and not your bank!
Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms
King of Sussex
Q&A: US healthcare reform
US President Barack Obama made reform of the American healthcare system his top priority when he entered the White House.
He had pledged to get a reform bill passed in 2009 but that will not happen now until early 2010.
The two versions passed by the House of Representatives and Senate on 7 November and 24 December respectively must now be combined into a single bill that President Obama can sign into law.
How is the US healthcare system currently structured?
Unlike other developed countries, the US does not have a universal system of healthcare coverage.
It is up to individuals to obtain health insurance. Most Americans obtain coverage through their employers, but others sign up for private insurance schemes.
Under the terms of most coverage plans, members pay regular premiums, but they are sometimes also required to pay part of the cost of their treatment (known in the US as a deductible) before the insurer covers the expense. The amount they pay varies according to their plan.
Does the US government provide health coverage for anyone?
Yes. Americans aged 65 or over can sign up for the government-run Medicare scheme, and low-income parents, children, pregnant women and people with certain disabilities are eligible for the government-administered Medicaid programme.
The US government also runs the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-Chip), which provides coverage to children whose parents are on modest incomes, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
Military veterans are also provided healthcare by a government-run scheme.
So what are the problems with the US system?
Healthcare costs for individuals are rising dramatically.
Premiums for employer-provided schemes have risen four times faster than wages, and are now double their cost nine years ago.
The percentage of employees with an annual deductible greater than $1,000 increased from 1% to 18% between 2000 and 2008.
As a nation, the US spent some $2.2tn (£1.36tn) on healthcare in 2007. That amounts to 16.2% of GDP, nearly twice the average of other OECD countries.
graphic
What are the effects of rising health costs?
The rising individual costs mean that more and more people in America are unable to afford health insurance. Tens of millions of Americans do not have insurance, and millions more are deemed "under-insured".
When someone without insurance (or with inadequate cover) falls ill, they are obliged to pay their medical costs out of their own pocket.
Barack Obama
Mr Obama says he wants to pass healthcare reform by the end of 2009
Half of all personal bankruptcies in the US are at least partially the result of medical expenses.
Rising costs also mean the government is spending more and more on Medicare and Medicaid.
US government spending on the two schemes is projected to rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 7% in 2025 and 12% in 2050, making rising healthcare costs one of the biggest contributing factors to the spiralling US budget deficit.
How many people in America do not have health insurance?
The US census bureau estimates that 46.3 million people in America, out of a population of 300 million, were uninsured in 2008.
Supporters of healthcare reform often use this figure as evidence that the system is failing too many Americans and needs to change.
Some opponents, however, say the figure is misleading as it includes illegal immigrants, Americans who earn over $50,000 a year and Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip who could get coverage if they wanted to. It also includes people who may have been temporarily in between jobs, and therefore only briefly without coverage.
The census bureau confirms that the 46.3 million figure includes 9.2 million non-citizens, and 18 million people who earn over $50,000 a year.
But backers of reform insist that - aside from illegal immigrants, who would not be covered under any of the plans for reform proposed by Congress or the White House - many of the 46.3 million uninsured people would indeed benefit from an overhaul, and that it is therefore a meaningful figure to cite.
What has President Obama proposed?
Mr Obama wants to provide more security and stability to Americans who have health insurance, provide insurance to those who do not have it, and slow the growth of healthcare costs.
He supports tougher regulations for the insurance industry, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused cover, and preventing insurers from dropping people's coverage when they get ill.
For those whose employers do not provide coverage, Mr Obama wants to create Health Insurance Exchanges - one-stop shops for people to compare different options. The president supports a proposal to set up a government-run scheme that would be offered to people who are eligible for the exchanges, but he has indicated that he would still support a bill that did not include this so-called "public option".
Under Mr Obama's plan, every American would be required to get insurance, or face a fine (this is called an "individual mandate"). Less well-off Americans would be offered subsidies to help them pay for their coverage.
The president would pay for reform by cutting waste from the existing Medicare programme, and levying fees on insurance companies who offer "gold-plated" insurance plans.
What about Congress?
The broad outlines of the House and Senate bills are pretty similar and compatible with President Obama's vision for healthcare reform.
All the bills:
* favour tougher regulations for insurers
* establish an individual mandate - that is you must get health insurance
* set up insurance exchanges for those who do not have coverage provided by employers
* offer subsidies for the less well off - although their exact size varies from committee to committee
* pay for most of the reforms by cutting waste in the Medicare programme
The major points of disagreement are on the public option and how to pay for the remainder of reform.
Senate health committee members Senator Chris Dodd (left) and Senator Tom Harkin
The Senate health committee was the first to pass a healthcare reform bill
The House of Representatives bill, costed at $1tn over 10 years, backs a public option and proposes to pay for reform by, among other measures, levying a surtax of up to 5.4% on families earning $500,000 or more a year.
The Senate bill, put at $871bn over 10 years, does not include a public option.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates that the House bill would expand coverage to 36 million more Americans; the Senate bill to 31 million.
Like the House bill, the Senate measure would require everyone to buy insurance and would create exchanges where people could choose between options. It would also subsidise low-income Americans.
Republicans criticised a number of tax increases - included to help pay for the expanded insurance coverage - in the bill.
So how can the differences between the bills be resolved?
A conference committee will be established, made up of members from both chambers, to reconcile the two versions of the bill.
This will include deciding whether the final version will have a public option.
Then, both chambers will vote on the final version of the bill. If both vote in favour, the bill will go to the president for his approval.
US President Barack Obama made reform of the American healthcare system his top priority when he entered the White House.
He had pledged to get a reform bill passed in 2009 but that will not happen now until early 2010.
The two versions passed by the House of Representatives and Senate on 7 November and 24 December respectively must now be combined into a single bill that President Obama can sign into law.
How is the US healthcare system currently structured?
Unlike other developed countries, the US does not have a universal system of healthcare coverage.
It is up to individuals to obtain health insurance. Most Americans obtain coverage through their employers, but others sign up for private insurance schemes.
Under the terms of most coverage plans, members pay regular premiums, but they are sometimes also required to pay part of the cost of their treatment (known in the US as a deductible) before the insurer covers the expense. The amount they pay varies according to their plan.
Does the US government provide health coverage for anyone?
Yes. Americans aged 65 or over can sign up for the government-run Medicare scheme, and low-income parents, children, pregnant women and people with certain disabilities are eligible for the government-administered Medicaid programme.
The US government also runs the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-Chip), which provides coverage to children whose parents are on modest incomes, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
Military veterans are also provided healthcare by a government-run scheme.
So what are the problems with the US system?
Healthcare costs for individuals are rising dramatically.
Premiums for employer-provided schemes have risen four times faster than wages, and are now double their cost nine years ago.
The percentage of employees with an annual deductible greater than $1,000 increased from 1% to 18% between 2000 and 2008.
As a nation, the US spent some $2.2tn (£1.36tn) on healthcare in 2007. That amounts to 16.2% of GDP, nearly twice the average of other OECD countries.
graphic
What are the effects of rising health costs?
The rising individual costs mean that more and more people in America are unable to afford health insurance. Tens of millions of Americans do not have insurance, and millions more are deemed "under-insured".
When someone without insurance (or with inadequate cover) falls ill, they are obliged to pay their medical costs out of their own pocket.
Barack Obama
Mr Obama says he wants to pass healthcare reform by the end of 2009
Half of all personal bankruptcies in the US are at least partially the result of medical expenses.
Rising costs also mean the government is spending more and more on Medicare and Medicaid.
US government spending on the two schemes is projected to rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 7% in 2025 and 12% in 2050, making rising healthcare costs one of the biggest contributing factors to the spiralling US budget deficit.
How many people in America do not have health insurance?
The US census bureau estimates that 46.3 million people in America, out of a population of 300 million, were uninsured in 2008.
Supporters of healthcare reform often use this figure as evidence that the system is failing too many Americans and needs to change.
Some opponents, however, say the figure is misleading as it includes illegal immigrants, Americans who earn over $50,000 a year and Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip who could get coverage if they wanted to. It also includes people who may have been temporarily in between jobs, and therefore only briefly without coverage.
The census bureau confirms that the 46.3 million figure includes 9.2 million non-citizens, and 18 million people who earn over $50,000 a year.
But backers of reform insist that - aside from illegal immigrants, who would not be covered under any of the plans for reform proposed by Congress or the White House - many of the 46.3 million uninsured people would indeed benefit from an overhaul, and that it is therefore a meaningful figure to cite.
What has President Obama proposed?
Mr Obama wants to provide more security and stability to Americans who have health insurance, provide insurance to those who do not have it, and slow the growth of healthcare costs.
He supports tougher regulations for the insurance industry, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused cover, and preventing insurers from dropping people's coverage when they get ill.
For those whose employers do not provide coverage, Mr Obama wants to create Health Insurance Exchanges - one-stop shops for people to compare different options. The president supports a proposal to set up a government-run scheme that would be offered to people who are eligible for the exchanges, but he has indicated that he would still support a bill that did not include this so-called "public option".
Under Mr Obama's plan, every American would be required to get insurance, or face a fine (this is called an "individual mandate"). Less well-off Americans would be offered subsidies to help them pay for their coverage.
The president would pay for reform by cutting waste from the existing Medicare programme, and levying fees on insurance companies who offer "gold-plated" insurance plans.
What about Congress?
The broad outlines of the House and Senate bills are pretty similar and compatible with President Obama's vision for healthcare reform.
All the bills:
* favour tougher regulations for insurers
* establish an individual mandate - that is you must get health insurance
* set up insurance exchanges for those who do not have coverage provided by employers
* offer subsidies for the less well off - although their exact size varies from committee to committee
* pay for most of the reforms by cutting waste in the Medicare programme
The major points of disagreement are on the public option and how to pay for the remainder of reform.
Senate health committee members Senator Chris Dodd (left) and Senator Tom Harkin
The Senate health committee was the first to pass a healthcare reform bill
The House of Representatives bill, costed at $1tn over 10 years, backs a public option and proposes to pay for reform by, among other measures, levying a surtax of up to 5.4% on families earning $500,000 or more a year.
The Senate bill, put at $871bn over 10 years, does not include a public option.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates that the House bill would expand coverage to 36 million more Americans; the Senate bill to 31 million.
Like the House bill, the Senate measure would require everyone to buy insurance and would create exchanges where people could choose between options. It would also subsidise low-income Americans.
Republicans criticised a number of tax increases - included to help pay for the expanded insurance coverage - in the bill.
So how can the differences between the bills be resolved?
A conference committee will be established, made up of members from both chambers, to reconcile the two versions of the bill.
This will include deciding whether the final version will have a public option.
Then, both chambers will vote on the final version of the bill. If both vote in favour, the bill will go to the president for his approval.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,207
i watched somthing recently about a British charity that collects old (70s or older in some cases) prosthetic limbs, glasses and dental equipment then goes off to the poor parts of the world to distribute these NHS cast offs to those who have no hope to pay for them normally. They went to Angola, El Salvador and Houston... wtf 
. gives an insight.
(i dont remember the exact location but you get the idea)
. gives an insight.(i dont remember the exact location but you get the idea)
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
It doesn't surprise me that there is such opposition to this bill. Look how long it took the US to react to the devastation of New Orleans?
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 26,304
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,275
The company I work for provides healthcare as part of my employment package. When you get ill you go to your local doctor or ER and you are treated. That’s when your problems can start. You will have to make a co-payment (this is standard on most insurance schemes in the US) on even a basic visit – mine is $50 per ER visit. You then have to make sure your hospital or specialist is in-network, if not you will only be reimbursed a percentage of your claim – this can be anywhere between 50 and 80%. It’s normally fairly easy to get an in-network provider in a city.
The standard of health care provided is very good and you rarely have to wait. All hospitals and doctors are terrified of being sued so they tend to recommend additional tests, MRI scans etc which a British quack would probably not bother with.
As your health cover is generally linked to your job when you get laid off you and your family will be without basic health cover and will need to take this out for yourself. Obama reckons there are something like 60 million people without cover and this is what he was supposed to be changing but this now looks like it is dead in the water after the Democrats loss in Massachusetts.
I would say that the NHS as a provider of healthcare for the masses is way better.
The standard of health care provided is very good and you rarely have to wait. All hospitals and doctors are terrified of being sued so they tend to recommend additional tests, MRI scans etc which a British quack would probably not bother with.
As your health cover is generally linked to your job when you get laid off you and your family will be without basic health cover and will need to take this out for yourself. Obama reckons there are something like 60 million people without cover and this is what he was supposed to be changing but this now looks like it is dead in the water after the Democrats loss in Massachusetts.
I would say that the NHS as a provider of healthcare for the masses is way better.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
According to the BBC, nobody knows. Apart from Helter Skelter, apparently. Although ministers (back in 2004) did believe it was a problem.
However, "Figures from CCI legal services, a debt collection service, put the cost at anything between £50m and £200m each year."
BBC NEWS | Health | Are health tourists draining the NHS?
pre-existing conditions for the most part are never covered.
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #20
OK,with you so far. Now this is the stupid question 
dunce why not a Nhs style of health care ? Or is there to much money to be made in peole being sick ? That is what is seems like. 
dunce why not a Nhs style of health care ? Or is there to much money to be made in peole being sick ? That is what is seems like.