ANA Discussion Forum
AN Community => AN Community => Topic started by: Kit W on July 19, 2009, 04:37:49 pm
-
Hi folks,
I just thought I'd stir the pot a bit regarding the current ideas of the elected few that wish to force us all to have a government run health service here in the USA with no choice about being able to have our own private health insurance.
I heard on a local radio show that on page sixteen of the new proposals that we will not be allowed to keep our own private health insurance under certain circumstance and may loose the right when we change jobs.
Neil Boortz mentioned that in England under the National Health Service rules that cancer patients can be refused certain life extending drugs by the NHS and then, if they decide to fight the decision have to drag themselves in front of an unelected board of officials (civil servants) to beg for the drugs they have been refused by the NHS. If they are lucky they will get them but this board can still refuse to allow the patients to receive the drugs they need. I know this to be true because I am from England and lived there until the summer of 2007 and have seen these stories appear on the national news and in the press over there.
There will be waiting lists of up to 2 years for things like hip replacements, CT scans and MRI's. An emergency CT scan has a waiting time of six weeks all you need to do is check the NHS website to learn this. Interestingly people who need things like replacement hips or knees usually have to wait into to their mid 70's on average. and finally unable to walk unaided or end up in a wheelchair. My mum was one of them she has had two hip replacements and went through years of agony because she was made to wait until the pain was too unbearable for her. These operations were done five years apart. Because of what my mum was put through she was forced to live a less and less active life. Having to use sticks to walk with and now finally a walking frame. All because the NHS is always short of cash to be able to help people live more fullfilling lives in retirement. She has recently had to wait 5 years for cataract operation. Her other eye needs doing too but she'll probably pass away before she gets back to the top of the waiting list for the operation. My mum is was 83 this may.
I had a cousin die from having a brain tumor. I'm still waiting to find out from my mum what type is was and some history behind it. But I have no doubt that the cost of the NHS being able to help cousin came into it at some point. I'm just thankful I was over here when I collapsed with a seizure which was the result of having an undiscovered AN, which incidentally should have been detected whilst I was still living in England but my doctor didn't send me for the all important CT scan because of cost. I presented to my doctor with symptoms that should have resulted in an automatic CT scan that day.
Something you may not be aware of is that by 2010 the NHS will be £95 billion in debt. I'll let you do your own conversions to US$ and it will only get worse as it has done year on year.
Part of the reason that the NHS is in a worse state than it would otherwise be is because it is top heavy with managers on huge salaries. This money would have been better used to pay the nurses and doctors better salaries top stop them going abroad for better conditions and wages. It would also have meant that wards would not have been closed in large number just to try and save money. Which has resulted in longer and longer waiting lists.
You all need to ask yourselves if you too want a health service like the one in the UK which the elected few want to implement over here. I fear that the standard of health in this country will diminish if a public health service is implemented over here.
Kit
-
I am not one to shut down a topic right away, so we will see what happens. For now, a note asking all to recognize that this forum is not a place for political debates, and this is a very political topic, so please tread carefully. At the first sign of acrimony, we will lock it up.
Steve
-
Steve,
I am grateful that you are leaving the subject open for the present to see how the topic progresses. Hopefully, from my point of view, it will result in some constructive debate but I do leave it in your hands how long it stays open.
Regards
Kit
-
As I understand it, this would be another choice, not the only choice. Also, I would find out for myself what the bill reads and not let a talk show scare you, mostly because these talk shows are usually conservative minded things and not well balanced. I asked a friend of mine who lives in Ireland (Lorenzo, who used to come here as he has an AN, too) and he said the best European countries with health care are the French and Sweden, but it carries a huge tax burden on the people. So...don't know if there is ever going to be an ideal health care solution for America or for the rest of the world. Doesn't seem fair that the rich and people with excellent insurance get the best and the poor and under insured get the worst, but it has always been that way and I haven't the faintest idea if it can ever be equalized. A lot of people want a lot of services but they aren't so happy about paying more and more taxes, which you'd have to have in order to pay for all of that. And it seems the UK, with it's load of taxes still isn't able to handle the burden of health care for so many. Lorenzo said that Ireland has it's problems too, and it's a mess. And this is something so many countries have to deal with, if they have a conscious at all. It's going to be interesting to see what happens!
My husband works for a small company and they help pay for health insurance, but they change every year to something different and our coverage changes with it. One year my MRI costs me the whole darn thing, and the next time I have to pay 20%. I am just hoping to get to 65 and medicare before I have to have another one. Of course, right now, I'm just hoping the company that he works for stays in business. We've lost a lot on the 401K and I really don't know how we are going to get along in the future. If the housing market changes a bit, we could sell our house and live in something small and with little up-keep. We could manage something. I'm not too afraid of change, because life is full of changes! Our son just got back from Thailand and the living is cheap there. We could live like royalty on not too much. Just have to adapt to killer heat and humidity. I wonder what their health care is like? ;) ;D
Sue in Vancouver, (for now, anyway! 8))
-
Kit ~
Thanks for the information. At 66 and with a wife who has multiple medical issues to deal with, I'm extremely wary of these government-run health insurance plans being touted in Washington, D.C. by the politicians. I've seen and read the health care horror stories from the U.K. and Canada and they're not encouraging. I have a multitude of oppositional points to the current 'health reform' plans now being put forth but I won't go into them here. This is a complicated issue with many facets and almost as many points of view. I agree with Steve G. that this forum is probably not the best place to discuss them because health care reform, by whatever name it's called, tends to become political and thus, divisive. We don't need or want that here. I doubt that discussions on this issue can remain dispassionate for long, all good intentions notwithstanding. That being the likely case, I'll end my discussion on this issue now and suggest that we simply leave it to the dedicated political sites to debate, which is appropriate.
Jim
-
Thanks Kit, for explaining your experiences as a "heads up" to the rest of us
And thanks Steve and Jim, for explaining what might not be appropriate on this terrif forum.
One suggestion that might help .... as we seek and get information from the "elected few" or from our favorite talk shows, news stations, blogs and water-cooler friends ..... why not call your health insurance provider and ask what they feel are the pros and cons of what is being proposed ..... and how this kind of change could, or will, affect your situation. I think they might have very good points for you to ponder.
Greg
-
I would like to share some positive things about my health care and Dr's that live here in my state. When I was diagnosed with my AN I was told by several dr's that I needed my AN removed immediately. I was fortunate that I was able to get in and have my MRI scheduled within a few days of meeting with my pain Dr after complaining I was having hearing loss and started to get headaches. The day after my MRI I received a call that I had a brain tumor and the next day I was meeting with my neurosurgeon (all of these appointments took place in one week). I sent my MRI results to some friends of mine who are Dr's (radiologist) down in Orlando and they shared my MRI with other dr's at their hospital and all of them said I needed to have my AN removed within the month due to the size and location of the tumor. I had my surgery within two weeks from my diagnosis and my neurosurgeon gave me his private cell phone of which he told me I could call him anytime of the day. I did have to go back into the hospital two more times but the treatment and support was awesome. I paid very little out of pocket (less than $1000 for three surgeries) and my insurance company was wonderful. I only had one issue with a Dr for a separate bill and that was eventually resolved.
What really concerns me is if we go with a national health care could one expect the same treatment? If I had to wait months for my surgery I would have stroked and possibly died. I believe we need something for folks who loose their jobs and are not eligible for medicare/medicaid. I know many of us who are getting closer to retirement we are worried about the potential of losing a job and having no insurance but if we think that we will still have the same type of treatment/coverage that we have today, I wouldn't bet on it....
-
I'm not sure that how we finance health care is the central problem. What bothers me is that health care is too expensive, however it ends up getting paid for. Rare things like an acoustic neuroma will always be out there, and we do need a way to cover them when they occur - hopefully for everyone that gets one.
But the bulk of health care cost is in things that could arguably be prevented or greatly reduced. As a nation, we pour a huge amount of money into coronary by-pass surgery, for instance, to fix up people who have eaten too many cheeseburgers. If we added that cost into the price of the food, a cheeseburger would probably be 50 bucks or more. An ounce of prevention in this area would be worth tons of cure. There are many other examples.
There just does not seem to be a good way to create incentives for people or doctors or insurance providers to take that route, though. Tony has reported elsewhere on the forum that bee pollen is showing signs of being a useful treatment for NF2, yet it is unlikely to get funded research, since there is no money to be made in it. We are caught in a system that is designed to deliver high tech medical care and drugs, at a hefty price, but that is ineffective at providing low cost preventative care.
And no, I don't have the answers.
Steve
-
I had a conversation recently with some folks in the healthcare industry. They felt that a big part of the problem is that under the current system, we are not CONSUMERS of health care. If insurance or the government pays for most of it, there is no incentive (or opportunity) for those of us seeking care to shop around or providers to make things cost-effective. Example: cost for comparable veterinary procedures is nowhere near the costs for we humans. I can get an MRI done on my horse for around $1500--and this includes anesthesia and having the results read. My MRI last year, the insurance was charged about $5000, no anesthesia, and then having it read was a seperate charge. If I carry an animal in for stitches, it might cost me $15 or $20 whereas the same thing from a human dr can cost several hundred. This goes for pretty much everything.
Their proposed solution was to convert the insurance industry to a system of health savings accounts paired with catastrophic illness/injury insurance with high deductibles ($5000-ish), which come with affordable premiums. We would shop around for providers, and decide for ourselves where the best balance of value/care is to be found. Sounds good to me.
I don't see a way to realistically provide the same standard of care to EVERYONE that is acceptable to me. That's just not how the world works, sad as it is. The thing is, there are so many options out there that are not being used as often as they should be, because of insurance. Why would someone go to the Oriental Medical dr and have to pay $60 or $70 for a consult/treatment, along with $10 or $20 for a remedy, when they can go to an MD and get a prescription for a grand total of $30 out of pocket? Why eat right when you can take a pill that will fix your blood pressure or cholesterol? The whole thing is whacked. There is a place for eastern and western medicine, there is a place for preventitive care and fixing problems with meds and/or surgical procedures. As things are now, there is no balance, and there won't be until something changes.
Obama-care is sure as heck NOT the answer.
Vonda
-
political talk on a brain tumor support website... not my cup o' tea......
-
Maybe we should just go visit the Vet? ;)
Things will be tried, things will fail, other things will be tried, maybe something will stick. You don't know until you try. Medicine is big business, that's for sure. Our Vancouver Clinic here, has gotten bigger and better and bigger and better since I've lived here these past 13 years. They have buildings all over town, and new equipment and somebody has to pay for all of that , which is us. The vet has a much smaller overhead. SW Washington Medical Center got a big donation and added a beautiful new building, and surprise, the price of the MRI's went up.
Like I said, this is going to be interesting. ::)
Sue in Vancouver USA
-
I haven't made my mind up on this issue yet, but I would like to commend everyone on keeping the discussion thus far civil and thought-provoking.
I really don't mind seeing this discussion here in the AN Community forum at all. Yes, it is a political discussion, but it's directly relevant to folks in the US who have brain tumors.
Thanks, moderators, for leaving it open as long as we play nice.
Sara
-
Man, do I have an opinion on this one. In a nutshell, do I want the same group of people that are running the post office making decisions about my health care? Insurance companies are bad enough -- sometimes I feel like a car that's been in an accident and some insurance adjuster is trying to prove that my frame isn't bent. Think Post Office lines are bad.
Steve I'm with you. Provide incentive for maintaining your own good health. I remember Jack Kennedy instituting a physical fitness program for the country -- and you participated in it in school. It was a great idea -- that went by the wayside after his death. Today I am amazed at many of my self-indulgent friends who have gained weight to the point of being obese -- I'm not talking about a few extra pounds -- more like a 100 extra pounds. Which can only lead to heart and diabetes issues. They were careless with their own health, yet they expect someone to come bail them out of their problem.
If the government wants to do something constructive, they can help doctors afford medical school. They can provide tax breaks to individuals for maintaining good health and companies who institute health and exercise programs. They can allow insurance companies to operate nationally instead of statewide thus creating real competition. They can provide tax breaks to pharmecutical companies who provide low-cost alternatives (instead of passing research costs along). And they can pursue Tort Reform that significantly reduces frivolous malpractice law suits. There is a solution that isn't a Government run program. But it won't happen. Without going into detail why, it has something to do with those in office (many of who who are lawyers and don't want Tort Reform) doing what's in their best interest to maintain their positions in office. >:(
-
LADAVID FOR PRESIDENT, LADAVID FOR PRESIDENT!!! Why don't you write our elected officials and give them your ideas?
Sue in Vancouver, USA
-
Thanks Sue. But I am sure there might be some issues on the political stage with my mis-spent youth. ;)
Yes, I do regularly write Senator Feinstein and Ma'am Boxer and I always get the same cookie-cutter response. I'm afraid the only way it seems to get their attention is by voting them out of office -- which I will campaign for.
-
hi all,
It's great to see that members are reading this topic and putting their 'two penneth in' as we say in England whilst keeping responses civil.
Thank you all
Kit
-
All I have to say is that I just got the bill for when Kendie busted her chin open at Grandma's and had to go to the ER...thank goodness that I just have to pay the co-pay because the bill was for $1305.00. They used super glue...you know what? Next time I am running down to Wal Mart - super glue is MUCH cheaper there!! ;D
K
-
I worked at a large hospital for 23 years. Some of my co-workers were from Canada & Sweden. I also have toured Russia's healthcare system. (Ukraine and Belarus too)
Here are a few comments from professionals that were from countries with nationalized healthcare.
Swedish MD (OB/GYN) - In operating room, after patient was anesthetized. "This patient never would have have been allowed this surgery in Sweden. She would have been told there was nothing they could do."
Swedish MD - I am bringing my mother over here for surgery otherwise she won't get it.
Canadian nurse - You don't know how lucky you are. The healthcare in the US is so much better.
Canadian nurse - We come down here to work (traveling nurses) because the working conditions are a lot better. The patient load (how many patients you are responsible for at one time) is too much and it is dangerous.
I went to Russia just after the Soviet Union collapsed on an exchange to visit their healthcare system. No antibiotics unless the patent's family bought them on the black market with American dollars. Cancer patients were told they didn't have cancer so they wouldn't lose hope. The hospitals that I toured look phoney and the rooms looked like mock-ups! I am not exaggerating. It was hard to believe what I saw. It was a while ago but I remember how some people thought the Soviet Union took care of its people. I didn't see evidence of it.
-
The National health Service in the UK is funded by taxation in the form of a National Health Insurance deduction from your wages. It is currently calculated at 9% of your gross wage. But, not all of the 9% goes to the NHS.
At one time I used to work in the life assurance industry in the UK and during our training we were shown how the government breaks down the 9% into different areas. Listed below are just the ones I can remember:
1. Unemployment payments to the unemployed.
2. State pensions to the retired.
3. Disabled benefit for the disabled.
4. Payments to run the NHS.
5. Refunds to people who have contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). It means the government only gets to keep 7% instead of the full 9% the balance going into a private pension fund.
I sure there are some I'm missing out. but these are the ones I remember. You also have to pay tax too but that is way too complicated to go into here. All I'll say is that your net income each time you get paid is roughly 35% less than the gross.
-
Ken ~
After viewing the previous responses to your initial post and noting that they are avoiding the divisive political aspects of this issue and after reading David's salient post (that reflects my views) I'll venture to add a few comments of my own.
I concur with Steve that we don't really have a 'health care' problem in the U.S. as much as we have a health care cost problem. A lot of folks want 2009-level health care at 1980 prices - and that's not feasible. Medicare and Medicaid (simultaneously enacted in 1965) have contributed to the problem due to their low reimbursement policies that force private insurers to pay the difference to doctors and hospitals (their operating costs and subsequent fees don't go down) which raises medical insurance premiums because no company can operate for long without a profit, which, these days, is around 3% for HMO's. Hardly a windfall. These government-run entities (Medicare, Medicaid) are the best example of why 'nationalized', 'universal' or 'socialized' health care - under any name - would be a disaster. In 1966, Medicare cost 3 billion and was projected to cost 12 billion by 1990. Medicare actually cost 107 billion in 1990. Medicare now has 34 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. To cover that, the Medicare tax rate will have to rise from it's current rate of 2.9% to almost 14%. When Medicare began in 1966, the monthly premium due from Medicare recipients was $3.00. Today, it's almost $100. - and Medicare is still grossly underfunded. For every dollar paid in premiums, the government pays $3. Thus, the 'unfunded liabilities' that assume future demands on Medicare that are not funded with higher taxes.
We often read or hear about the '47 million uninsured' in America, meaning that at any given time, 47 million people don't have medical insurance protection. Unfortunately, that is a half-truth. Yes, some 47 million people in the U.S. may not carry medical insurance on a given day but 27%, some 12.6 million — aren't even citizens. Another 20% of the uninsured are only uninsured for an average of 4 months at any given time. They are usually between jobs. Some 38% of all the uninsured have incomes well over the national average of $48,000. They simply chose not to buy medical insurance coverage. When you look into the reality behind the '47 million uninsured' headline used to make those of us with insurance feel guilty, the real dynamics of this alleged 'crisis' become a bit clearer. In addition, Medicaid was enacted to cover the indigent so the cry that '47 million don't have access to health care' is a fallacy. Anyone can receive medical attention at almost any ER in America, with or without prior insurance coverage. Hospitals have people especially hired to help those receiving medical care and without insurance apply for federal, state and local benefits that help pay hospital and doctor costs. However, some states have a problem with undocumented people (illegal aliens) that do not qualify for any benefits due to their illegal status yet receive necessary medical attention. The hospitals 'absorb' the unpaid expense and because most are not charities, have to raise their prices to cover it. Eventually, insurance companies pay the higher rates - and raise our premiums. Many of these hospitals that treated large numbers of illegal (undocumented) aliens (foreigners) have gone out of business because they could not charge enough to insured patients to offset the huge cost of treating so many uninsured illegal aliens without any medical insurance and unqualified to obtain any government assistance, in most cases. That is a tragedy. However, 'universal' health care insurance would not cover illegal aliens, nor should it. I'm well aware that we all need some form of 'catastrophic' medical insurance. My AN surgery cost about $100,000. Who has that kind of money? Still, while we may all need some form of medical insurance, if we could control what we pay for it by the prudent use of doctors and medical facilities, it would empower the consumer, instead of empowering government.
The current 'nationalized health care' package is still being shaped and debated in Washington so I cannot make assumptions at this point. However, with the history of how government programs constantly expand (I don't object - but as an example: Medicare began covering disabled people in 1972) and how costs are usually wildly underestimated makes me highly skeptical of any health insurance 'reform' instituted by government, under any political party. The U.S. simply cannot afford another multi-trillion-dollar 'program' to 'reform' health care, which is excellent, thank you. It's how we pay for our health care that is the real issue. I concur with Steve's assessment that taking better care of ourselves is crucial, as well as being more responsible for how our health care money is spent. Whether that is with Medical Savings Accounts or some other scheme, it would beat another government monstrosity that would inevitably reduce the quality and access to health care while costing even more than we pay, now. Most of us like our medical care and want everyone to have something similar. However, expanding the government's role in medical care would only injure the current high quality of that care, introduce care rationing and waiting lists while limiting our options and costing far more than we pay now, while still not 'covering' every person in America. I prefer the free enterprise system approach that holds the consumer (us) responsible for seeking and finding the most cost-effective approach to their health care while paying for much of it, themselves, when possible. When the patient has the option of going elsewhere with his money, doctors and hospitals will compete for the 'business'. As long as third parties (insurance companies) pay most of the bills, that doesn't happen. A huge, hideously expensive, option-closing 'single-payer' government-run system doesn't hold any appeal for me, but then, it may for others. I'm forced to be on Medicare (Blue Cross dropped me when I turned 65) but I'm not happy about it. My private medical insurance costs the same as I'm paying for the government insurance and I feel I have fewer options as many doctors are dropping Medicare and don't accept it as payment. 'Socialized medicine' hasn't worked well in other countries with much smaller, less diverse populations than the U.S. The rush to enact a so-called 'reform' measure that, in effect, will have the government running the health care insurance business (pushing out private insurers in no time) is unnecessary and makes me suspicious of the necessity for a gigantic bill that no elected official actually reads being hurried through the congressional labyrinth based on false claims of a 'health care crisis'.
I don't chose to debate this issue, I'm just adding my thoughts to others and hoping they won't be misunderstood or misrepresented. As AN patients, the future of health care is a fair issue for discussion, assuming we can keep the politics, parties and personalities out of it. I believe I've succeeded in doing that. My objections are beyond party or ideology. I thank those who've previously contributed to the discussion. What actually happens will be another topic of interest in the near future, I'm certain.
Jim
-
The idea of yet another giant federal program like this scares the heck out of me. They've done such a great job running these types of programs.... ::)
I read a great comment about this just today. It suggested that since this is supposedly such a great thing that the President, and all members of the House and Senate and their families be required to have this as their only form of health insurance and that they only have access to healthcare that will be allowed within the program. I think we would see this die a quick death if that were the case. I've felt that that kind of rational thought should apply to all programs. If they are to force things upon us they should have to live with it also. I wonder if Teddy Kennedy would be so gung ho over this if he had to wait for treatment of his cancer?