BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You can't be serious?!
Mandatory Health Insurance part 3
- Thread starter yolland
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Yes that's true. Only noting the phony numbers that single-payer advocates throw out there to bolster their arguments.
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
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
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.
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
Blue Crack Addict
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?
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.
Shocking, I know.
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
That's right, INDY, we leave it up to the "states" just like Candidate Mittens did in MA! Shocking, I know.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
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.
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
Blue Crack Addict
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.
They were all talking about that in the last GOP debate I saw-the founding fathers and the Constitution and all those Christian values.
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
Blue Crack Addict
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
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
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.
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
from the "Absolutely Disgusted" thread:
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.
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.
Last edited:
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
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.
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.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
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.
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
Blue Crack Distributor
Arizona is crazy, but not batshit crazy enough to pass this.
Whoever introduced this bill is a terrible person.
But, also:
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
Blue Crack Addict
*Headdesk* WOW.
The hell is up with Arizona lately? Seriously? Is the heat getting to you guys too much down there or something?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I wonder what the unemployment rate is in Arizona. Must not be too bad, if they have time to spend on this stuff.
I actually believe in an religious exemption for RELIGIOUS institutions. Many Democrats do, Ted Kennedy did. Think that could be worked out for the best for all involved, if people were actually interested in that. Not in extending that to some vague all encompassing "moral objections" from mom and pop and every employer. That is very dangerous, and this AZ thing is just the beginning. I believe we live in America too, where women still have the right to medical privacy and the right to be treated with dignity. And to be treated like adults, not children. And not to be shamed about their adult private lives by mom and pop.
I wonder if they are concerning themselves with any moral objections to Viagra. Or vasectomies. Stuff like that.
I actually believe in an religious exemption for RELIGIOUS institutions. Many Democrats do, Ted Kennedy did. Think that could be worked out for the best for all involved, if people were actually interested in that. Not in extending that to some vague all encompassing "moral objections" from mom and pop and every employer. That is very dangerous, and this AZ thing is just the beginning. I believe we live in America too, where women still have the right to medical privacy and the right to be treated with dignity. And to be treated like adults, not children. And not to be shamed about their adult private lives by mom and pop.
I wonder if they are concerning themselves with any moral objections to Viagra. Or vasectomies. Stuff like that.
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ Remember, Viagra is never used for non-medical conditions, the way contraception is. It's only ever used to treat the grave physical suffering and harm caused by not being able to get it up like you used to. Let's not confuse that with elective, lifestyle "treatments" that are in truth only being pursued to benefit the patient's sex life.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Is it possible that Arizona is surpassing Texas as the state moving backwards the fastest?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Well this may not be true. There are some doctors that have prescribed it for severe "circulation issues", BUT it's rare and very questionable. Years ago there was a controversy about this in the medical community, I'm not sure how prevelant this is today
OP
OP
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
No problem then, just bring the boss a note from the doctor explaining you need a penile vasodilator for your pulmonary hypertension. Can't imagine why that would embarrass anybody.
Last edited:
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I would also imagine there would be plenty of doctors perfectly happy to write a note for a woman patient saying that they're taking the pill for some non-contraceptive use, even if that's not the case.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No problem then, just bring the boss a note from the doctor explaining you need a penile vasodilator for your pulmonary hypertension. Can't imagine why that would embarrass anybody.
Exactly, that was part of the controversy was that there are circulation drugs that cost the same that aren't viagra and are approved for said issues.
And this is part of the problem. Just like the issue above you have too many doctors that are willing to lie in order for it to get covered. When I was in the industry I would see doctors doing this on a daily basis.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I would think so too. Just one among many other reasons that this AZ thing is a joke, even setting aside how offensive it is.
As for the religious liberty thing, I don't feel that my religious liberties are being taken away. Doesn't affect me personally but I still don't think so. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Catholics use contraception, contrary to church teachings. Even with a religious exemption for religious institutions, I believe that medical non contraceptive use should be paid for and protected. And there are all kinds of possible problems and issues with that too.
I don't believe in politicizing the health of women or in controlling our health and personal lives, or in any sort of daddy state. It ticks me off. Daddy state=ok Nanny state/mommy state=not ok
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
Sorry, Indy. You are mistaken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HYNMfWpHg
Sorry to gleefully shit on your point.
This is also what your source's article on the CBO estimate looks like now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HYNMfWpHg
Sorry to gleefully shit on your point.
This is also what your source's article on the CBO estimate looks like now:
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
That is a good reason, I think. Individuals choosing their own medical insurance policy without any mandatory policy forced upon them by their employer (or the government). Have the insurance companies offer a basic insurance of about $150/month which covers the basic things (for generic, medical necessary hospital admittance, visits to the GP, essential medication, etc.) with choices for additional coverage.
Have the insurance companies compete with each other, so the individual has an actual choice. It's still mandatory to be insured, but with competition costs can be lower (as well as the monthly premiums) and service will hopefully be important too.
Similar threads
