Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 > ... I do realize that in these countries there are often long > waiting times for seeing doctors ... I went to my HMO complaining of a persistent sore throat that had lasted about two months. They scheduled me to see a specialist in three months. I asked if I couldn't see anyone sooner. They said they had a backlog. I said, " What if it's something serious like throat cancer? " They said, " Don't worry, throat cancer is slow growing. " And this is very expensive, private health insurance folks. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 So true, so true. The simplest and cheapest (although of course it wouldn't really be cheap at all) solution to solving this health care crisis would be to make everybody eligible for Medicare regardless of age and state of health care. The computers are already in place for this system, you wouldn't have to start from scratch with a new system. Medicare is pretty good at controlling the costs to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. The doctors can bill what they want but Medicare only allows so much. Rich people could still pay for a private plan if they wanted more than basic coverage. This is really the only plan that makes sense. Of course the drug companies and insurance companies are already gearing up to stop this, maybe this time they really will lose.............cheshmetroshan wrote: "Of course, what insurance (and the lack of it) often represents, as numerous studies have shown, is the difference between care and no care, between an early cancer diagnosis and a late diagnosis, between properly managing a chronic condition like asthma and waiting until a dangerous attack occurs. For some of the patients in the Archives of Surgery study, which was led by s Hopkins trauma surgeon Adil Haider, what insurance represented was nothing less than the difference between life and death." ~from No Insurance? That's a Killer. > >> > > > The theory behind health insurance is sharing the risk. If> > every person in the country is in one pool of insured, the cost> > to each person is exactly the average cost of health care for> > all people in the country.> > > > However, the motivation of an insurance company is necessarily> > different. It aims not to share the risk but to avoid the risk> > by not insuring higher risk people and/or by charging them> > higher premiums. The ideal goal is to make a profit on each> > person, to charge him more than they pay out for him. There's> > no way around that. If the company doesn't do that they will> > make less money than their competitors, or lose money, and be> > driven out of business. Very highly paid actuary/statisticians> > are hired to analyze risk precisely for each group of people.> > > > Private insurance works out well if you're young, male (women> > can get pregnant and will pay 50% more than men in some states> > where it is not illegal to charge different rates by gender),> > and healthy. In other words, if you don't really need health> > care, you can get it cheap.> > > > However if you're old, or you have or have had cancer or some> > other serious health condition, private insurance costs a> > bundle, if you can get it at all. I called a number of> > insurance companies that wouldn't even talk to me when I told> > them I had had cancer. They told me not to bother to apply for> > a quote because I wouldn't qualify. I am totally dependent on> > my current HMO and will not be able to change insurers even if> > they treat may badly or price me out of the market. Even if I> > could find another company to insure me, I can expect a> > "pre-existing condition" battle for any claims I might make.> > > > I've seen my HMO rates go up dramatically because I'm older than> > I once was. And since I'm going to keep getting older, I can> > expect my rates to keep going up dramatically until I hit the> > magic age for Medicare.> > > > For most of us as we reach retirement age, our income goes down> > but our health insurance cost goes up. If it weren't for> > Medicare we would be, as they say, S-O-L.> > > > So I'm in favor of public health insurance.> > > > As for the question of whether public health insurance means> > lower quality of care, I just don't know. I do know that with> > private insurance the doctors are being paid less and less and> > having to fight more and more to get paid. My wife is a social> > worker who does counseling, paid for mostly by health insurance.> > It is amazing the hoops that the insurance companies put her> > through to get paid, and the shady dodges and outright lies that> > many of the companies use to avoid paying her.> > > > Everyone has heard the expression Never attribute to malfeasance> > what can be explained by simple incompetence. But with the> > insurance companies it's the other way around. They pretend> > they didn't get a claim, or that it didn't have the right codes> > on it, or it was lost in the mail, or the check went out - oh> > you mean you didn't get it?, or it wasn't authorized, or, oops,> > we must have lost the paper work. It never works the wrong way> > and results in an overpayment. It happens too often to be> > incompetence.> > > > So before someone tells me all the things wrong with single> > payer health insurance I'd like to hear what's so good about> > private insurance and why it's any better to justify the higher> > cost and risk that it imposes.> > > > Alan> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 That’s pretty well how it works here in Australia. And from my experience to date, it works very well indeed at very little cost to me. All the best Terry Herbert I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since then. My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za Dr “Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate data " From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Harwood Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2009 2:56 PM To: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Re: Health Care reform So true, so true. The simplest and cheapest (although of course it wouldn't really be cheap at all) solution to solving this health care crisis would be to make everybody eligible for Medicare regardless of age and state of health care. The computers are already in place for this system, you wouldn't have to start from scratch with a new system. Medicare is pretty good at controlling the costs to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. The doctors can bill what they want but Medicare only allows so much. Rich people could still pay for a private plan if they wanted more than basic coverage. This is really the only plan that makes sense. Of course the drug companies and insurance companies are already gearing up to stop this, maybe this time they really will lose............. cheshmetroshan <cheshmetroshan> wrote: " Of course, what insurance (and the lack of it) often represents, as numerous studies have shown, is the difference between care and no care, between an early cancer diagnosis and a late diagnosis, between properly managing a chronic condition like asthma and waiting until a dangerous attack occurs. For some of the patients in the Archives of Surgery study, which was led by s Hopkins trauma surgeon Adil Haider, what insurance represented was nothing less than the difference between life and death. " ~from No Insurance? That's a Killer. > > > > > > The theory behind health insurance is sharing the risk. If > > every person in the country is in one pool of insured, the cost > > to each person is exactly the average cost of health care for > > all people in the country. > > > > However, the motivation of an insurance company is necessarily > > different. It aims not to share the risk but to avoid the risk > > by not insuring higher risk people and/or by charging them > > higher premiums. The ideal goal is to make a profit on each > > person, to charge him more than they pay out for him. There's > > no way around that. If the company doesn't do that they will > > make less money than their competitors, or lose money, and be > > driven out of business. Very highly paid actuary/statisticians > > are hired to analyze risk precisely for each group of people. > > > > Private insurance works out well if you're young, male (women > > can get pregnant and will pay 50% more than men in some states > > where it is not illegal to charge different rates by gender), > > and healthy. In other words, if you don't really need health > > care, you can get it cheap. > > > > However if you're old, or you have or have had cancer or some > > other serious health condition, private insurance costs a > > bundle, if you can get it at all. I called a number of > > insurance companies that wouldn't even talk to me when I told > > them I had had cancer. They told me not to bother to apply for > > a quote because I wouldn't qualify. I am totally dependent on > > my current HMO and will not be able to change insurers even if > > they treat may badly or price me out of the market. Even if I > > could find another company to insure me, I can expect a > > " pre-existing condition " battle for any claims I might make. > > > > I've seen my HMO rates go up dramatically because I'm older than > > I once was. And since I'm going to keep getting older, I can > > expect my rates to keep going up dramatically until I hit the > > magic age for Medicare. > > > > For most of us as we reach retirement age, our income goes down > > but our health insurance cost goes up. If it weren't for > > Medicare we would be, as they say, S-O-L. > > > > So I'm in favor of public health insurance. > > > > As for the question of whether public health insurance means > > lower quality of care, I just don't know. I do know that with > > private insurance the doctors are being paid less and less and > > having to fight more and more to get paid. My wife is a social > > worker who does counseling, paid for mostly by health insurance. > > It is amazing the hoops that the insurance companies put her > > through to get paid, and the shady dodges and outright lies that > > many of the companies use to avoid paying her. > > > > Everyone has heard the expression Never attribute to malfeasance > > what can be explained by simple incompetence. But with the > > insurance companies it's the other way around. They pretend > > they didn't get a claim, or that it didn't have the right codes > > on it, or it was lost in the mail, or the check went out - oh > > you mean you didn't get it?, or it wasn't authorized, or, oops, > > we must have lost the paper work. It never works the wrong way > > and results in an overpayment. It happens too often to be > > incompetence. > > > > So before someone tells me all the things wrong with single > > payer health insurance I'd like to hear what's so good about > > private insurance and why it's any better to justify the higher > > cost and risk that it imposes. > > > > Alan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 That’s pretty well how it works here in Australia. And from my experience to date, it works very well indeed at very little cost to me. All the best Terry Herbert I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since then. My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za Dr “Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate data " From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Harwood Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2009 2:56 PM To: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Re: Health Care reform So true, so true. The simplest and cheapest (although of course it wouldn't really be cheap at all) solution to solving this health care crisis would be to make everybody eligible for Medicare regardless of age and state of health care. The computers are already in place for this system, you wouldn't have to start from scratch with a new system. Medicare is pretty good at controlling the costs to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. The doctors can bill what they want but Medicare only allows so much. Rich people could still pay for a private plan if they wanted more than basic coverage. This is really the only plan that makes sense. Of course the drug companies and insurance companies are already gearing up to stop this, maybe this time they really will lose............. cheshmetroshan <cheshmetroshan> wrote: " Of course, what insurance (and the lack of it) often represents, as numerous studies have shown, is the difference between care and no care, between an early cancer diagnosis and a late diagnosis, between properly managing a chronic condition like asthma and waiting until a dangerous attack occurs. For some of the patients in the Archives of Surgery study, which was led by s Hopkins trauma surgeon Adil Haider, what insurance represented was nothing less than the difference between life and death. " ~from No Insurance? That's a Killer. > > > > > > The theory behind health insurance is sharing the risk. If > > every person in the country is in one pool of insured, the cost > > to each person is exactly the average cost of health care for > > all people in the country. > > > > However, the motivation of an insurance company is necessarily > > different. It aims not to share the risk but to avoid the risk > > by not insuring higher risk people and/or by charging them > > higher premiums. The ideal goal is to make a profit on each > > person, to charge him more than they pay out for him. There's > > no way around that. If the company doesn't do that they will > > make less money than their competitors, or lose money, and be > > driven out of business. Very highly paid actuary/statisticians > > are hired to analyze risk precisely for each group of people. > > > > Private insurance works out well if you're young, male (women > > can get pregnant and will pay 50% more than men in some states > > where it is not illegal to charge different rates by gender), > > and healthy. In other words, if you don't really need health > > care, you can get it cheap. > > > > However if you're old, or you have or have had cancer or some > > other serious health condition, private insurance costs a > > bundle, if you can get it at all. I called a number of > > insurance companies that wouldn't even talk to me when I told > > them I had had cancer. They told me not to bother to apply for > > a quote because I wouldn't qualify. I am totally dependent on > > my current HMO and will not be able to change insurers even if > > they treat may badly or price me out of the market. Even if I > > could find another company to insure me, I can expect a > > " pre-existing condition " battle for any claims I might make. > > > > I've seen my HMO rates go up dramatically because I'm older than > > I once was. And since I'm going to keep getting older, I can > > expect my rates to keep going up dramatically until I hit the > > magic age for Medicare. > > > > For most of us as we reach retirement age, our income goes down > > but our health insurance cost goes up. If it weren't for > > Medicare we would be, as they say, S-O-L. > > > > So I'm in favor of public health insurance. > > > > As for the question of whether public health insurance means > > lower quality of care, I just don't know. I do know that with > > private insurance the doctors are being paid less and less and > > having to fight more and more to get paid. My wife is a social > > worker who does counseling, paid for mostly by health insurance. > > It is amazing the hoops that the insurance companies put her > > through to get paid, and the shady dodges and outright lies that > > many of the companies use to avoid paying her. > > > > Everyone has heard the expression Never attribute to malfeasance > > what can be explained by simple incompetence. But with the > > insurance companies it's the other way around. They pretend > > they didn't get a claim, or that it didn't have the right codes > > on it, or it was lost in the mail, or the check went out - oh > > you mean you didn't get it?, or it wasn't authorized, or, oops, > > we must have lost the paper work. It never works the wrong way > > and results in an overpayment. It happens too often to be > > incompetence. > > > > So before someone tells me all the things wrong with single > > payer health insurance I'd like to hear what's so good about > > private insurance and why it's any better to justify the higher > > cost and risk that it imposes. > > > > Alan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Do not think that with government run health insurance that you will have the same care that congress gets. Congress members can see a doctor with no appointment and get the best care at no cost to them, just us. I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . If congress oversees health care like they did the lending industry we will be in deep doo doo. > > > > > > > > The Obama Transition Team is looking for input on potential > health > > > care > > > > reform. ACOR has set up a discussion list with a survey > available > > for > > > > completion by members of the cancer community. > > > > > > > > You can fill in the survey at: > > > > > > > > <http://acor.org/town-hall/survey.html> > > > > http://acor.org/town-hall/survey.html > > > > > > > > You can also directly take part in the process by going to > > > > http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory and share your story and what > > your > > > issues > > > > related to your cancer experience or those in your life. Some > > examples > > > that > > > > you might want to discuss are research funding, access to > prostate > > > cancer > > > > screening, access to treatment, etc. > > > > > > > > You can read some of the input that the transition team has > received > > > about > > > > healthcare reform by going to this link > > > > http://change.gov/open_government/yourseatatthetable/C21/. > > > > > > > > If you have not already participated your time is limited so > take > > part > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kathy > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Do not think that with government run health insurance that you will have the same care that congress gets. Congress members can see a doctor with no appointment and get the best care at no cost to them, just us. I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . If congress oversees health care like they did the lending industry we will be in deep doo doo. > > > > > > > > The Obama Transition Team is looking for input on potential > health > > > care > > > > reform. ACOR has set up a discussion list with a survey > available > > for > > > > completion by members of the cancer community. > > > > > > > > You can fill in the survey at: > > > > > > > > <http://acor.org/town-hall/survey.html> > > > > http://acor.org/town-hall/survey.html > > > > > > > > You can also directly take part in the process by going to > > > > http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory and share your story and what > > your > > > issues > > > > related to your cancer experience or those in your life. Some > > examples > > > that > > > > you might want to discuss are research funding, access to > prostate > > > cancer > > > > screening, access to treatment, etc. > > > > > > > > You can read some of the input that the transition team has > received > > > about > > > > healthcare reform by going to this link > > > > http://change.gov/open_government/yourseatatthetable/C21/. > > > > > > > > If you have not already participated your time is limited so > take > > part > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kathy > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Those with money will need to pay for the poor and that's where it appears you're stuck. In Canada, people have the same pressure and we are fighting constantly to keep what we have. Bye Emile The problem here in the US is that the middle class is also paying for the poor and is being driven down as a result. Tough to work two or more jobs just to pay more in taxes. > > > > In a message dated 1/2/2009 1:45:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > ameyer2@... writes: > > So I'm in favor of public health insurance. > > > Hi: > I'm CDN and from what I hear the US will NEVER have a medical care system I > would trade for! > > Women get better pre-natal care in Canada than will ever be available in the > US. > > Statistically speaking pre-natal care,Cancer recovery and high risk care, > could be the reason that Canadians live longer by one year than do Americans, > and nobody needs to beg for treatment. > > Now I'm not bashing USA, I'm married to an American girl, 11 years, and > it seems to do ok for it's Seniors. I'm coming on to 74 years, and start my > 4th week of radiation in the US on Monday. I've been prodded, poked, > Scanned, Stabbed, needled and Advised in both the US and Canada and I really can't > tell you the comparison in service from one or the other, In Canada, the > only time I go into my wallet is for my medial card, and because of my senior > status in the US, just for a small co-pay here. > > 12 years ago I had a triple Bypass operation in Canada, and I'm lucky I was > in Canada because otherwise I'm sure I would not be writing this here today. > > > I'm not saying you need to follow the CDN pattern, surely you're smart > enough to start your own, only, not smart enough to know when to do it. Those > with money will need to pay for the poor and that's where it appears you're > stuck. In Canada, people have the same pressure and we are fighting > constantly to keep what we have. Bye > > > Emile > > > > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Those with money will need to pay for the poor and that's where it appears you're stuck. In Canada, people have the same pressure and we are fighting constantly to keep what we have. Bye Emile The problem here in the US is that the middle class is also paying for the poor and is being driven down as a result. Tough to work two or more jobs just to pay more in taxes. > > > > In a message dated 1/2/2009 1:45:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > ameyer2@... writes: > > So I'm in favor of public health insurance. > > > Hi: > I'm CDN and from what I hear the US will NEVER have a medical care system I > would trade for! > > Women get better pre-natal care in Canada than will ever be available in the > US. > > Statistically speaking pre-natal care,Cancer recovery and high risk care, > could be the reason that Canadians live longer by one year than do Americans, > and nobody needs to beg for treatment. > > Now I'm not bashing USA, I'm married to an American girl, 11 years, and > it seems to do ok for it's Seniors. I'm coming on to 74 years, and start my > 4th week of radiation in the US on Monday. I've been prodded, poked, > Scanned, Stabbed, needled and Advised in both the US and Canada and I really can't > tell you the comparison in service from one or the other, In Canada, the > only time I go into my wallet is for my medial card, and because of my senior > status in the US, just for a small co-pay here. > > 12 years ago I had a triple Bypass operation in Canada, and I'm lucky I was > in Canada because otherwise I'm sure I would not be writing this here today. > > > I'm not saying you need to follow the CDN pattern, surely you're smart > enough to start your own, only, not smart enough to know when to do it. Those > with money will need to pay for the poor and that's where it appears you're > stuck. In Canada, people have the same pressure and we are fighting > constantly to keep what we have. Bye > > > Emile > > > > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 do not know of any such system for the "little people". Hi: This story may be true, but then again, it may be a figment of my imagination. Once upon a time, In Canada, we had a Provincial leader (Minister) who smoked his life away. When he got sick, he could not place himself at the top of the list for treatment in Canada, so he went to the USA and paid part of his millions to place himself at the top of the list down there. He died anyway. What is the moral of this story, if true?.........I'm glad we did not have to pay for his bad habit. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 do not know of any such system for the "little people". Hi: This story may be true, but then again, it may be a figment of my imagination. Once upon a time, In Canada, we had a Provincial leader (Minister) who smoked his life away. When he got sick, he could not place himself at the top of the list for treatment in Canada, so he went to the USA and paid part of his millions to place himself at the top of the list down there. He died anyway. What is the moral of this story, if true?.........I'm glad we did not have to pay for his bad habit. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 do not know of any such system for the "little people". Hi: 5 years ago my wife had a Breast lumpectomy, and previous to that, a biopsy. Both outpatient procedures cost just over $9000. We seen the tally. When medicare paid the hospital, they accepted just under $400 for each procedure. That indicates to me that somebody fills his pockets. Incidentally. I thought there were only two rules in this group. Makes me wonder why we need to terminate this discussion as long as there is so obviously continued interest in the subject. Just wondering. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 do not know of any such system for the "little people". Hi: 5 years ago my wife had a Breast lumpectomy, and previous to that, a biopsy. Both outpatient procedures cost just over $9000. We seen the tally. When medicare paid the hospital, they accepted just under $400 for each procedure. That indicates to me that somebody fills his pockets. Incidentally. I thought there were only two rules in this group. Makes me wonder why we need to terminate this discussion as long as there is so obviously continued interest in the subject. Just wondering. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Please make sure to share this story and any others which express the vicious and degrading nature of the hydra-headed monster that is the for-profit health care gulag in America. The president-elect already has: Brokaw: Privilege, right or responsibility. Let's start with that. Obama: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that. ~from Transcript of 2nd McCain, Obama debate > > > ... I do realize that in these countries there are often long> > waiting times for seeing doctors ...> > I went to my HMO complaining of a persistent sore throat that> had lasted about two months. They scheduled me to see a> specialist in three months. I asked if I couldn't see anyone> sooner. They said they had a backlog. I said, "What if it's> something serious like throat cancer?" They said, "Don't worry,> throat cancer is slow growing."> > And this is very expensive, private health insurance folks.> > Alan> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The point, as admitted by Emile, is that the Minister could not, could *not*, obtain the same level of competent medical care in Canada that he could obtain in the USA. Hi: Sorry, you did not interpret that correctly. The point was that he could not use his money to purchase better care in Canada. The care he paid for in the USA provides no evidence that he got better care. There were several issues in my post, if you seen them all. Public moneys spent for Self inflicted injuries are not well spent. They do nothing to treat the illness. Calous? Maybe. I'm suffering through a cancer I did not earn and had no Choices to prevent. My USA wife also suffered the same. I believe many of us in this group are wishing we would have had the choices that were available to him to prevent what has now afflicted us. Would you stop smoking today to CURE a prostate?. IF I smoked, I would quit just to save someone else. Treatment offered to me in Canada was essentially identical to my treatment in the USA. Actually the facilities in Canada provided more services, like meals and accommodations for each treatment week. and mileage to get back and forth each week. Well bye for now Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The point, as admitted by Emile, is that the Minister could not, could *not*, obtain the same level of competent medical care in Canada that he could obtain in the USA. Hi: Sorry, you did not interpret that correctly. The point was that he could not use his money to purchase better care in Canada. The care he paid for in the USA provides no evidence that he got better care. There were several issues in my post, if you seen them all. Public moneys spent for Self inflicted injuries are not well spent. They do nothing to treat the illness. Calous? Maybe. I'm suffering through a cancer I did not earn and had no Choices to prevent. My USA wife also suffered the same. I believe many of us in this group are wishing we would have had the choices that were available to him to prevent what has now afflicted us. Would you stop smoking today to CURE a prostate?. IF I smoked, I would quit just to save someone else. Treatment offered to me in Canada was essentially identical to my treatment in the USA. Actually the facilities in Canada provided more services, like meals and accommodations for each treatment week. and mileage to get back and forth each week. Well bye for now Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm not sure whether you're saying that you were billed for$9,000 or $18,000, but either way, the fact that the hospitalaccepted $800 from Medicare indicates that billing is 100%unfair and irrational. Hi Alan: That was $18000+. Fortunately I'm married to a US citizen who has spousal medicare coverage, otherwise I could not visit the USA, Since having cancer I could not get insurance. It's not a free ride for me because i contribute to the economy and we file joint USA income taxes. Now conversely, My wife spends 6 months each summer in Canada and medicare pays her nothing for illness in Canada. We are not far from the border but, at 73, if she got ill, it would be a frantic rush to cross the border to have her treated. We used to go together each year to a Clinic in Toronto that did a full three day medical evaluation with all the necessary specialist and test involved. There was no cost for me but It cost her $350 each time and that was where her cancer was discovered. Her treatment was completed in the USA. You know, I don't even have the right to speak here on this subject but I see so many hardship stories that I cannot help expressing compassion. I Can't help rooting for this cause, and I hope what I say can help somebody. Bye for now Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm not sure whether you're saying that you were billed for$9,000 or $18,000, but either way, the fact that the hospitalaccepted $800 from Medicare indicates that billing is 100%unfair and irrational. Hi Alan: That was $18000+. Fortunately I'm married to a US citizen who has spousal medicare coverage, otherwise I could not visit the USA, Since having cancer I could not get insurance. It's not a free ride for me because i contribute to the economy and we file joint USA income taxes. Now conversely, My wife spends 6 months each summer in Canada and medicare pays her nothing for illness in Canada. We are not far from the border but, at 73, if she got ill, it would be a frantic rush to cross the border to have her treated. We used to go together each year to a Clinic in Toronto that did a full three day medical evaluation with all the necessary specialist and test involved. There was no cost for me but It cost her $350 each time and that was where her cancer was discovered. Her treatment was completed in the USA. You know, I don't even have the right to speak here on this subject but I see so many hardship stories that I cannot help expressing compassion. I Can't help rooting for this cause, and I hope what I say can help somebody. Bye for now Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 In the UK you can have the choice - if you are in a private insurance scheme or can pay. Hi: In Canada it is difficult to pay. For instance when my wife and I went to the Lockwood Clinic, she, as a US citizen, was able to pay for a special test she wanted, and I could not get it. No medical care program should be inflexible but should be built to provide for the needs of the populace. Seems, in my humble opinion, That medicare does a good job, If everybody had that. Medicaid also helps those in need. That might be worth fighting for. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 In the UK you can have the choice - if you are in a private insurance scheme or can pay. Hi: In Canada it is difficult to pay. For instance when my wife and I went to the Lockwood Clinic, she, as a US citizen, was able to pay for a special test she wanted, and I could not get it. No medical care program should be inflexible but should be built to provide for the needs of the populace. Seems, in my humble opinion, That medicare does a good job, If everybody had that. Medicaid also helps those in need. That might be worth fighting for. Bye Emile New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 " I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . http://www.hr676.org " il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway Re: Health Care reform > Do not think that with government run health insurance that you will > have the same care that congress gets. Congress members can see a > doctor with no appointment and get the best care at no cost to them, > just us. I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . > If congress oversees health care like they did the lending industry > we will be in deep doo doo. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 " I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . http://www.hr676.org " il faut d'abord durer " Hemingway Re: Health Care reform > Do not think that with government run health insurance that you will > have the same care that congress gets. Congress members can see a > doctor with no appointment and get the best care at no cost to them, > just us. I do not know of any such system for the " little people " . > If congress oversees health care like they did the lending industry > we will be in deep doo doo. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 > Once upon a time, In Canada, we had a Provincial leader (Minister) who > smoked his life away. > > When he got sick, he could not place himself at the top of the list for > treatment in Canada, so he went to the USA and paid part of his > millions to place himself at the top of the list down there. He died > anyway. > > What is the moral of this story, if true?.........I'm glad we did not > have to pay for his bad habit. Bye How callous. So he smoked. So what? Should he have to face the horrors that I guarantee he did face because he was somehow a " sinner? " Lawn fertilizer. The point, as admitted by Emile, is that the Minister could not, could *not*, obtain the same level of competent medical care in Canada that he could obtain in the USA. There are no treatment " lists " (as established by government clerks) in the USA. As I know very well from personal experience, such atrocities simply do not happen. Yet. We'll see what happens after January 20. The controlling factor is the schedule of the individual medic. *Anecdote Alert* After I fired my rad onc (one of the most satisfying letters I've ever written), I alone and without any referral, hired my med onc. The point is this: *WE* are in charge. And is the treatment " free? " Of course not. The taxpayers fund the system, whether they wish to or not. The basic philosophy is this: TANSTAAFL, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Something that True Believers in Socialist Nostrums truly believe, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Never forget: Government consists in *force*, whatever its public relations face, *force*. Regards, Steve J Santayana: " Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. " Updating Santayana: " Those who cannot remember the past are a highly-sought-after voting bloc " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 > Once upon a time, In Canada, we had a Provincial leader (Minister) who > smoked his life away. > > When he got sick, he could not place himself at the top of the list for > treatment in Canada, so he went to the USA and paid part of his > millions to place himself at the top of the list down there. He died > anyway. > > What is the moral of this story, if true?.........I'm glad we did not > have to pay for his bad habit. Bye How callous. So he smoked. So what? Should he have to face the horrors that I guarantee he did face because he was somehow a " sinner? " Lawn fertilizer. The point, as admitted by Emile, is that the Minister could not, could *not*, obtain the same level of competent medical care in Canada that he could obtain in the USA. There are no treatment " lists " (as established by government clerks) in the USA. As I know very well from personal experience, such atrocities simply do not happen. Yet. We'll see what happens after January 20. The controlling factor is the schedule of the individual medic. *Anecdote Alert* After I fired my rad onc (one of the most satisfying letters I've ever written), I alone and without any referral, hired my med onc. The point is this: *WE* are in charge. And is the treatment " free? " Of course not. The taxpayers fund the system, whether they wish to or not. The basic philosophy is this: TANSTAAFL, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Something that True Believers in Socialist Nostrums truly believe, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Never forget: Government consists in *force*, whatever its public relations face, *force*. Regards, Steve J Santayana: " Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. " Updating Santayana: " Those who cannot remember the past are a highly-sought-after voting bloc " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 > 5 years ago my wife had a Breast lumpectomy, and previous to > that, a biopsy. Both outpatient procedures cost just over > $9000. We seen the tally. When medicare paid the hospital, > they accepted just under $400 for each procedure. That > indicates to me that somebody fills his pockets. I'm not sure whether you're saying that you were billed for $9,000 or $18,000, but either way, the fact that the hospital accepted $800 from Medicare indicates that billing is 100% unfair and irrational. If you did not have insurance from Medicare or a private insurer you would have been forced to pay $9,000 (or $18,000) for what was manifestly an $800 medical service. If you did not pay, there is a very good chance that you would have been sued. Since you almost certainly were forced to sign a statement saying that you were financially responsible in order to get any service at all, it's very likely that the hospital would have won the lawsuit and extracted 11 or 22 times the actual cost of the service from you. If it came to that, I would personally prefer to pay an additional $13,000 or even more in taxes than to pay the $13,000 I currently pay to my HMO for medical insurance. I would then know that the amount I paid was tied to my income taxes. If my income dropped, my payment would drop too. If I became destitute, I'd still get medical insurance. If my HMO disappeared, I'd still get medical insurance. In an earlier post I said that I might not be able to get insurance if my current insurer dropped me, but it's actually worse than that. Since my insurer only operates in a few states, I also can't move. For example, if I would like to retire in Florida, I can't do it because my HMO doesn't operate in Florida and I don't think I could get medical insurance from anyone else. The insurance companies just don't want old guys, and especially don't want old guys who have had cancer. My only savior on that is Medicare, which is still 3 years away for me. We like to talk a lot about " free choice " in medical care. But the truth is, if we had a national, public, single payer health insurance plan, my free choices would expand dramatically. As it is now, I'm stuck. Those of you who have had cancer that think that private insurance gives you free choice are living in fantasy land. Try to make some other choices and see what happens. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 > 5 years ago my wife had a Breast lumpectomy, and previous to > that, a biopsy. Both outpatient procedures cost just over > $9000. We seen the tally. When medicare paid the hospital, > they accepted just under $400 for each procedure. That > indicates to me that somebody fills his pockets. I'm not sure whether you're saying that you were billed for $9,000 or $18,000, but either way, the fact that the hospital accepted $800 from Medicare indicates that billing is 100% unfair and irrational. If you did not have insurance from Medicare or a private insurer you would have been forced to pay $9,000 (or $18,000) for what was manifestly an $800 medical service. If you did not pay, there is a very good chance that you would have been sued. Since you almost certainly were forced to sign a statement saying that you were financially responsible in order to get any service at all, it's very likely that the hospital would have won the lawsuit and extracted 11 or 22 times the actual cost of the service from you. If it came to that, I would personally prefer to pay an additional $13,000 or even more in taxes than to pay the $13,000 I currently pay to my HMO for medical insurance. I would then know that the amount I paid was tied to my income taxes. If my income dropped, my payment would drop too. If I became destitute, I'd still get medical insurance. If my HMO disappeared, I'd still get medical insurance. In an earlier post I said that I might not be able to get insurance if my current insurer dropped me, but it's actually worse than that. Since my insurer only operates in a few states, I also can't move. For example, if I would like to retire in Florida, I can't do it because my HMO doesn't operate in Florida and I don't think I could get medical insurance from anyone else. The insurance companies just don't want old guys, and especially don't want old guys who have had cancer. My only savior on that is Medicare, which is still 3 years away for me. We like to talk a lot about " free choice " in medical care. But the truth is, if we had a national, public, single payer health insurance plan, my free choices would expand dramatically. As it is now, I'm stuck. Those of you who have had cancer that think that private insurance gives you free choice are living in fantasy land. Try to make some other choices and see what happens. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.