She grew up deeply Catholic, and is still a dedicated churchgoer and church volunteer; that was the only time Iād ever seen religious guilt hit her so hard. It was scary to watch, honestly. With her, like many folks, itās a reward system: for good deeds and honesty, prayer, tithes, and church visits, you get good marks. Bad deeds and lies get you demerits. And when you go to heaven, your tally and eternal fate will be revealed. Itās not a system I think is very healthy to live with, really.
I thought I was clear, but I guess I wasnāt, since every comment missed what I said. My āpointā wasnāt that US healthcare prevents all bankruptcies. It was that representing it as providing no protection against bankruptcy wasnāt accurate, either.
Bullshit.
What the report REALLY says is that 52,000 Canadians received non-emergency health care while outside the country. Itās not that they left to receive healthcare, itās that they happened to be outside the country when they needed it. That includes folks vacationing in Mexico and a seniors wintering in Florida
But thatās not the impression they want to give. The report comes from the Fraser Institute, which regularly lobbies for American style healthcare. You know, when theyāre not receiving money from tobacco companies while (coincidentally!) opposing tobacco regulation and declaring the dangers of smoking to be ājunk science.ā
One thing to watch out for when comparing emergency wait times:
In the US the recorded wait time is the time you spend waiting until you see a doctor. In most Canadian provinces itās the time by which youāve seen the doctor, been diagnosed, treated, got any lab results back, and completed your ER visit.
The Free Shrugs people are so much easier to deal with.
With insurance thereās usually a cap on the out of pocket ā something like $4,000 no matter what the total cost isā¦ hopefully thatās true of travel insurance as well?
It varies depending upon the type of insurance plan.
What does that have to do with people not being bankrupted by medical bills?
The ACA doesnāt preclude that.
sidb mentioned that 80% are covered by insurance to help prevent being bankrupted by medical bills. You said that wasnāt the case. I mentioned that itās closer to 90%. Those are the facts; that is all.
At least the narcissist Martin Shkreli driving trollies the public might push us a little closer to price controls on pharma companies. Iāll bet the other vampires whoāve been quietly downplaying their draining the American healthcare system really wish he would shut up.
Does emergency care count toward the maximum out of pocket?
In 2016, your out-of-pocket maximum can be no more than $6,850 for an individual plan and $13,700 for a family plan before marketplace subsidies.
Woah, so thats good! A step in the right direction! Still, if youāre working poor, paying $13,700 out of pocket is going to be hard! What are the monthly fees like? Like $900 a person?
Itās insane. The working poor have to buy a plan (monthly expense), but they still have to meet a minimum out-of-pocket. Many of these people choose to forego needed doctorās appointments because they canāt afford to pay the co-insurance. Heaven forbid they have a chronic condition.
Has the āuninsurable due to pre-existing conditionā thing been sorted?
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-law/pre-existing-conditions/index.html
Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies canāt refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a āpre-existing conditionā ā that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts. They also canāt charge women more than men.
I believe that ACA stipulates that pre-conditions are insurable, which may be why some companies are bailing. Weāve swapped out insurance during enrollment periods and weāve never been subjected to this, but our insurance is through my spouseās employer. Previous to ACA, I think most private plans had a lag time (one friend had a six month wait, another had a 90-day).
Nah, take down and make an example of the yappy one and this goes away.
And, again, this āinsuranceā does not prevent a person from going bankrupt from medical bills? These numbers do not change the seriousness of private medical care in the US.
I gotta say Iām grateful for good corporate health insurance, but the big company I work for has talked about trying to move everyone over to getting our own private insurance and the employer just subsidizing it. The problems are that the fees for individual insurance are still really high through the state-run marketplaces and the coverage isnāt anywhere near as good because a multi-billion dollar company can negotiate terms that no individuals have the leverage to demand. Obamacare is better than nothing, and it has meant a lot more people get some coverage, but many of them still canāt have a major accident. And the governmentās definition of poor is laughably low and getting more so as costs of subsisting rise across the country, so thereās a huge gap of people who canāt really afford insurance and canāt qualify for assistance from the ACA or medicare (which was shrunk with the ACAās introduction).
Meanwhile the pharmaceutical industry brings home record profits and are certain to contribute to Clintonās campaign to ensure her threats are nothing more than pandering bullshit. Itās not like doctors are happy about it either. I have multiple doctor family members who hate the private health insurance industry. Frankly, I donāt know if a system like single-payer or Britainās NHS is a good idea in the United States, but Iām sure our system is beyond broken and has got to seriously change. Price caps on prescription pharmaceuticals and legislatively forced reform of the FDA would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, as you may have heard, we no longer have a Congress, just a bunch of self-regarding asshats who spend all their time raising campaign funds for their party so they can sit around and block any meaningful legislation either party tries to pass.
Ugh! Sorry. Not ranting at you, just frustrated with the whole mess.