Another falsehood. You do realize some Americans go overseas for treatment, right? Oh...you didn't. How cute.
Why they want you to vote against national health care
- Thread starter Urohawk
- Start date
I agree it doesn’t work the same. Massive government regulation and intervention (which you in part touched upon) ensure that for the benefit of the most politically connected rent seekers.
I’m still astounded morons don’t understand what profits are, why profits are good, and why eliminating profits via price controls and government monopoly is bad.
But here we are.
You do realize more folks come to America for care than Americans who go out of country for care right?
Because facts matter, here:
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/chambers_health-related_travel_final.pdf
That's not the point. If things are so perfect here Americans would NEVER go elsewhere. But whatever makes you feel better about being ripped off by the healthcare industry in this country.
Edit to say did you even look at where the people were coming from? JFC, 44% were coming from the Caribbean...certainly not pouring across the border from Canada. Facts, you know...
Nevertheless, the facts are what they are. And that is the point.
Now that you have been discredited, let me elaborate on the details as they are not as binary as you make them out to be.
There are many different levels of care. Some countries kick our ass at certain levels. Others, America rules. Preventative care is very important and America has areas to improve. Prescription drugs are cheaper elsewhere. We have work to do here. However, when it comes to many specialty care areas, medical tourism to the US is huge business (as documented earlier). We also are at the cutting edge in many areas. But, we also have the FDA that must approve everything. Therefore some advanced care or off-label care is not available to us locally.
Bottom line - medical tourism is a net boon for the US, especially for specialty care. We have work to do on preventative care and drug prices.
Here we go again. So what if you get dropped or have treatment declined. You can enroll then in Obamacare. Where you can’t be declined. Now will these policies approve your treatments? Maybe they won’t either. I’d also suggest a single payer model is gonna be even more restrictive than private plans.
Here is the language in Obamacare regarding dropped policies :
Life changes that can qualify you for a Special Enrollment Period
Loss of health insurance
You may qualify for a Special Enrollment Period if you or anyone in your household lost qualifying health coverage in the past 60 days OR expects to lose coverage in the next 60 days.
Coverage losses that may qualify you for a Special Enrollment Period:
However, this cancellation topic is mainly a misdirection technique for those that are for national healthcare.
The majority of non Obamacare policies come thru employers and as such largely aren’t subject to cancellation. Like Obamacare policies.
Only a minority of people get insurance on the open market and have a limited or short term policy subject to cancellation. So let’s not continue to distract with falsehoods.
People trust you because you practice medicine. Please be accurate with your discussion.
Last edited:
Well that and its true cost.
I just don’t think Americans are prepared for the costs, the wait times, the review boards and the treatment rejections that would be inevitable.
I agree we spend way too much in patients last few years or months of life. I’d also add, that in my considerable experience, families mainly, aren’t gonna be ready for their parents to go and have treatments withheld. Again, we are gonna have to have massive attitude changes take place that people aren’t prepared for. This is a uniquely American attitude, right or wrong, and why I suggest that America is not homogenous with Canada or Europe that have had these systems for decades.
Huh?
You cannot "just enroll in Obamacare" because you had a treatment declined by an insurer.
Obamacare IS the commercial insurers; there's nothing different, aside from subsidies adjusted on your taxes.
The ACA allows you to purchase the SAME policies outside the ACA, direct from the insurers, w/o dealing with the ACA site or any additional tax forms.
There are now available, thankfully, short to medium term policies that do allow you to be dropped. They do not carry the burden of all the mandated coverage and since they don’t they can be cancelled. These often comes with a fraction of the cost. For many, they are a great alternative. But true they are only chosen by a few.
So the point is, there are policies available that carry the risk of cancellation but they are not the majority. Now as far as Uros and your point, sure within policies, certain conditions can be deemed unnecessary or experimental. However this risk comes within Obamacare as well. Same with medicare. So people often have to go thru an approval process. AND THAT IS LIKELY TO GET WORSE IN SINGLE PAYER. Some treatments get approved. Others do not. What needs addressed isn’t the evil insurance refusing to pay for a 100k treatment. What needs improved is the current system that promotes treatments being billed for 100k. While I’ll agree, for profit insurance isn’t always ideal, someone is always going to be looking at what treatments cost and who is to receive them. No matter who the payer. If you have questions about how this will work, see England and Canada as examples of cost containment in action.
Liberals don't understand accounting.
So, $13B divided by $260B is a 5% net profit. That's sooooooo greedy
