Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Wait a minute. She's a citizen of Canada. You mean "No one in Canada finds themselves in that predicament" unless they are a Canadian injured in another country? That's the compassionate health care system we should model ours on? Why isn't she covered by her "universal coverage" you know, universally?

You can't be serious?!

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

That's not the case for all people who file for bankruptcy, though.

Yes that's true. Only noting the phony numbers that single-payer advocates throw out there to bolster their arguments.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Wait a minute. She's a citizen of Canada. You mean "No one in Canada finds themselves in that predicament" unless they are a Canadian injured in another country? That's the compassionate health care system we should model ours on? Why isn't she covered by her "universal coverage" you know, universally?

What are you talking about?

If I travel, as a Canadian, I will be reimbursed medical expenses (at the rate that they are charged under our provincial program). I have had friends who traveled abroad who had accidents (broken leg, etc) and got fully reimbursed. In the US the problem is that your astronomical healthcare costs would leave us short. Which is why you'd often pick up supplemental travel insurance (though I've always had that through my employer, up to $5M).

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

What are you talking about?

If I travel, as a Canadian, I will be reimbursed medical expenses (at the rate that they are charged under our provincial program). I have had friends who traveled abroad who had accidents (broken leg, etc) and got fully reimbursed. In the US the problem is that your astronomical healthcare costs would leave us short. Which is why you'd often pick up supplemental travel insurance (though I've always had that through my employer, up to $5M).

Thank you for the answer but what about procedures, drugs or equipment used here but not in Canada. Should a U.S. physician give the best possible care or ring the Canadian Minster of Permissible Health Care And How Much It Should Cost to ask for medical treatment advice?

Supplemental travel insurance, that's a dirty little secret of the Canadian healthcare system I haven't heard about.

[anitram]

Supplemental travel insurance, that's a dirty little secret of the Canadian healthcare system I haven't heard about.

Yeah, really dirty. For many (maybe most) of us, it's covered by our employer's supplemental health insurance (which covers prescriptions), so it costs me nothing. When I was a student, if I wanted to purchase it, the $80 I'd spend on it would always bankrupt me.

As for the rest, I honestly don't have enough time to try to discuss something seriously with somebody who clearly isn't interested. And for the record, if you knew a tenth as much about our constitution (hell, maybe anything at all) as most of us know about yours, you'd know that there is no Canadian Minister since healthcare is a provincial matter under our constitution.

[Moonlit_Angel]

See, you guys in other countries have this supposedly oh-so-problematic universal health care, and yet somehow you still manage to survive just fine. So why is it so hard for us here in the States to try and work something out?

[anitram]

I actually lived and worked in the US (NYC to be specific). I had what I thought was pretty comprehensive insurance, but still the copays were ridiculous. I would have flown home for our inferior third-world treatment by uneducated starving doctors who have no equipment more modern than bandages and like INDY suggested, no drugs like the ones available in AMERICA (nevermind hordes of your citizens who buy these drugs that are unavailable from Canadian online pharmacies and mooch off my taxpayer dollars) in hospitals that are crumbling rather than chance a surprise $20K bill.

Shocking, I know.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by anitram

As for the rest, I honestly don't have enough time to try to discuss something seriously with somebody who clearly isn't interested. And for the record, if you knew a tenth as much about our constitution (hell, maybe anything at all) as most of us know about yours, you'd know that there is no Canadian Minister since healthcare is a provincial matter under our constitution.

That's right, INDY, we leave it up to the "states" just like Candidate Mittens did in MA! Shocking, I know.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

When I was a student, if I wanted to purchase it, the $80 I'd spend on it would always bankrupt me.

So... all the extra heartbreak for her family, the added anguish on her fans and fellow participants and this stupid MSNBC article that couldn't wait to point fingers at the U.S, health care system... all could have been avoided had the young skier acknowledged the inherent danger of her activities and responsibly purchased some inexpensive ($80 in your case) supplemental insurance? I don't remember seeing that in the article.

As for the rest, I honestly don't have enough time to try to discuss something seriously with somebody who clearly isn't interested. And for the record, if you knew a tenth as much about our constitution (hell, maybe anything at all) as most of us know about yours, you'd know that there is no Canadian Minister since healthcare is a provincial matter under our constitution.

I started reading up on your supplemental insurance, seems Canadians are advised to buy it even if leaving their province let alone the country because of differences in coverage. Funny how "comprehensive" and "universal" don't seem to have the same meaning in Canada as they do here.

And for the record, are you aware that healthcare isn't even mentioned in our constitution? Cause a whole lot of people, Canadian and American, seem to think they have a "right" to it in the United States.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think good health, which most often requires good health care, is critical to life and to the pursuit of happiness. I for one can't put myself in the position of telling anyone that they don't have a right to health and health care. I think it's a fundamental Christian value too, which this country is supposed to be founded upon. Christian values, caring for the sick the way Jesus taught us to.

They were all talking about that in the last GOP debate I saw-the founding fathers and the Constitution and all those Christian values.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

So... all the extra heartbreak for her family, the added anguish on her fans and fellow participants and this stupid MSNBC article that couldn't wait to point fingers at the U.S, health care system... all could have been avoided had the young skier acknowledged the inherent danger of her activities and responsibly purchased some inexpensive ($80 in your case) supplemental insurance? I don't remember seeing that in the article.

It's my understanding from reading about this story as it unfolded that she was under the impression that she did have such coverage through whatever her ski federation is but because this was a side event (ie. unsanctioned), the insurance actually did not cover her.

And yes, I'm pretty well familiar with what is in your constitution. Thick law text books tend to have that effect.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

I think good health, which most often requires good health care, is critical to life and to the pursuit of happiness. I for one can't put myself in the position of telling anyone that they don't have a right to health and health care. I think it's a fundamental Christian value too, which this country is supposed to be founded upon. Christian values, caring for the sick the way Jesus taught us to.

They were all talking about that in the last GOP debate I saw-the founding fathers and the Constitution and all those Christian values.

Christianity is sort of a "use it when you need it" thing for these candidates, it seems.

I don't get this. I don't get why it's so hard for people to accept the idea of letting everyone have the ability to get affordable, good health care. I work a part-time job and don't have squat for health care. I can't afford that sort of thing. So if, god forbid, something were to happen to me, what should I do? Make my mom go further into debt paying my bills? She's already had enough of that with my dad.

And he had good health insurance at his job, mind you. But then when he was fired because he was sick, and when he got so sick to the point he literally could not get out of bed, the time limit on his insurance ran out and he had to rely on Medicare as a result. And even that didn't take care of everything.

The whole system is beyond messed up here, and if people have a hard time seeing that, then I don't know what to say anymore.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's my understanding from reading about this story as it unfolded that she was under the impression that she did have such coverage through whatever her ski federation is but because this was a side event (ie. unsanctioned), the insurance actually did not cover her.

Thank you for clarifying. One of my initial questions was why the sanctioning body didn't have insurance for its participants. Again, the article wasn't interested in addressing pertinent information such as what we've since discussed, just tossing out propaganda.

And yes, I'm pretty well familiar with what is in your constitution. Thick law text books tend to have that effect.

Then there's no shame in me not knowing "a tenth as much about our constitution (hell, maybe anything at all)" than a lawyer knows.

[yolland]

from the "Absolutely Disgusted" thread:

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm curious what your source for that statistic is.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Can we continue this in the health care mandate thread?

I'll wait for more info on that stat and on whether "contraceptive services" includes abortion?

The ultimate source for the stat is a 2008 Guttmacher Institute report based on NSFG data (US CDC survey) plus studies from various policy journals. Abortion was not included as a "contraceptive service."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/09_HPU19.3Frost.pdf

The methodology is not simple and would be tough to evaluate without seeing the source materials, especially the journal articles. I'm not sure there's anyone except them who's researched this particular question, either.

• Examine the actual contraceptive method-mix distribution for a national sample of recipients of public-sector family planning care, and calculate the number of unintended pregnancies that would occur over a one-year period given actual method use.
• Estimate likely method-mix distribution scenarios for these women in the absence of public services at the national level, and calculate estimates of the number of additional unintended pregnancies that would be expected under each methodmix scenario.
• Use these estimates to compute an average national-level ratio of the number of pregnancies prevented per 1,000 public-sector family planning clients.
• Apply this ratio to national and state level numbers of clients served at family planning clinics to estimate the numbers of pregnancies prevented by public-sector family planning clinic investments for each state, and distribute the number of pregnancies prevented into its components (births, induced abortions, and spontaneous pregnancy losses).
• Estimate the public-sector medical costs that would be incurred if these unintended births had not been prevented, and compare these costs with family planning program costs at the national and state levels to yield a final estimate of cost savings.

[INDY500]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...fidential/cbo-

obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

March 13, 2012
by Philip Klein Senior Editorial Writer

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U

[MrsSpringsteen]

Huffington Post


Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription covered.

Lisa Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

[anitram]

Outstanding.

It's as if the Republicans have decided that Obama must win and there ain't no stopping them now.

[INDY500]

First of all, "according to the American Civil Liberties Union."

Second, I can't imagine many companies are looking to drop contraceptive meds for women.

Third, turning health care into a political football is reason # five hundred and forty three why health insurance should be bought by the individual and not acquired through their employer or government.

The other 542 reasons are buried somewhere in this thread for those interested.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is crazy, but not batshit crazy enough to pass this.

Whoever introduced this bill is a terrible person.

But, also:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Second, I can't imagine many companies are looking to drop contraceptive meds for women.

Yes, agreed.

Which makes me wonder about the person who introduced the bill - does he honestly think there are employers who would go along with that? He must know of one. Must be a stellar place to work.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

*Headdesk* WOW.

The hell is up with Arizona lately? Seriously? Is the heat getting to you guys too much down there or something?