JohnnyAnger
OOOG AKBAR
Again why did the friend have to go to the USA for his treatment? They have private healthcare in Canada, you just have to pay for it. Surely they would do the surgery and he wouldn't have had to travel..
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
kev
JUB Addicts
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Posts
- 1,713
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 38
His wait was 78 weeks...you are saying 39...what's the diff?
You are all saying that people should just go fuck themselves....that you know what is better for them than they do.
Attention Canadians: you can still come to the US and have surgery next week if you really want to...for now at least.
You are all saying that people should just go fuck themselves....that you know what is better for them than they do.
Attention Canadians: you can still come to the US and have surgery next week if you really want to...for now at least.
otters
Sage Art Exiles Warden.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2005
- Posts
- 22,224
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
If you're claiming that "others" pay for it, you're implying that lambdaboy is a freeloader who doesn't work and doesn't pay taxes as well, and enjoys being on the dole. I very seriously doubt this is true.
P
peeonme
Guest
I have heard similar remarks from employers right here in America. Since we paid no taxes on a benefit from an employer it was referred to as a "freebie".
I then asked if I should leave the company if they would continue this insurance, the answer was no, if I didn't work there I would not receive it.
I replied then it seems as though I must work to obtain it, therefore it is not free.
Employers have been grumbling about having to pay for health care since the days of Ronald Reagan. They have incrementally shifted more and more of the cost to the employee, for a health care that has huge co-pays and deductibles. At the same time the employee
has been working for stagnant wages while his work load has increased.
Most refer to the health care they receive today as "catastrophic" coverage. Something one would only use in the event of a heart attack, accident and such.
To make it even better, just a little icing on the cake, they will only carry you on this policy for 30 days if you are off work sick, then you assume the whole premium. So if you have short term disability (which in most cases the employee pays for) it goes to pay the premium on your health care. You dare not let it lapse because then you would have to wait until the next open enrolment period.
While the ACA was a Godsend, it was only a beginning, a system that is functional and open to all is coming.
bankside
JUB 10k Club
The wait time for uninsured americans is a billion weeks, not 39 or 78.
Health care is not like a fancy sports car or a vacation property or a luxury cruise. Rich people, or even just people who work harder than average, should be able to enjoy the finer things in life. But everyone should be able to enjoy life itself. That requires universal health care. This is a basic question of morality that has been answered the same way for decades now. It is part of our human rights. It is good to see the Americans made at least some progress under Obama.
Health care is not like a fancy sports car or a vacation property or a luxury cruise. Rich people, or even just people who work harder than average, should be able to enjoy the finer things in life. But everyone should be able to enjoy life itself. That requires universal health care. This is a basic question of morality that has been answered the same way for decades now. It is part of our human rights. It is good to see the Americans made at least some progress under Obama.
P
peeonme
Guest
It was nearly a miracle that he was able to do this much, the opposition has tried everything to stop it and end it, while they pull in their direction, Americans need to pull even harder toward national health care.
No, health care is not a right. For it to be a right other people would have the obligation to work to provide it. From each according to ability, to each according to need. BUT that would mean that even abel bodied welfare people have an obligation to work. But that is not the plan. Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.
And remember, health care is no more important than food and in much of the country, clothing, shelter and energy. So if health care is a right, then why not food etc. What you are really saying is that everyone has a right and obligation to live in a communist country. Why not be honest and admit that is what you think.
What is often overlooked in the health care debate is that the United State's system of healthcare was collapsing; how quickly it was going to collapse depended on whether anyone could continue to pay the hugely increasing costs for insurance or the even more rapid rise of rate increases were someone unfortunate to be uninsured.
But in order to look at how we got here and devise a fix (something that Republicans don't even want to look at dispite the fact that "Obamacare" is a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation and Republicans), you have to dissect the system and understand positives and negatives occurring in other countries.
The auto companies (not unions) were largely responsible for the health care "insurance" format that has been used in the United States -- and is unlike most others around the world. In order to entice workers to remain with the company and to make it look like they were "giving" something to employees that would distinguish them from any other firm, the auto companies began offering health insurance. My father was a union president -- albeit a division of an AFL-CIO with only about 10,000 members. In the beginning, premiums were dollars -- literally -- to afford health insurance to members. For good measure, the companies also provided life insurance -- at $1.25 per month cost -- but it was something unlike other employees enjoyed. You also have to remember that during this period, penicillin was just being discovered along with vaccines for polio (my older brother had it, I was six years younger and got the vaccine which was free). You want to the local doctor's office for an x-ray or when you were ill; there was little in the way of "wellness exams" such as annual physicals or breast screening or colonoscopies. Everyone also smoked (including our primary doctor who also employed my mom). Doctors were largely single practice and made housecalls. Our family doctor started seeing patients in the dining room of his house until he could afford to buy a small office building and begin adding rooms and exam equipment. He purchased an x-ray machine so you could get your lungs checked if necessary or so that he could set your broken arm/leg in the office. Specialists were unheard of because there was no such thing as open heart surgery or transplants. Should you have a heart attack, you went to the hospital where you were placed in ICU for four days and observed while they tried to balance your body chemistry. There were no catheterizations, no stents, no bypasses; after you "rested" you were sent home and told to take it easy. You probably lit a cigarette up just outside the hospital and had probably been brought to the hospital by private car because the ambulance was being used as a hearse by the local funeral home at the time (the joke used to be that if the patient showed signs of life when you came to the fork in the road you took a right to the hospital. Otherwise it was a left and to the funeral home slab).
Unions loved knowing that their employees had "special benefits" which distinguished them from other groups. It wasn't until health care began making leaps with different antibiotics, testing equipment, and invasive treatments that costs suddenly rose (and sharply). Local governments and many businesses never set aside future money to pay for healthcare but instead offered employees "lifetime coverage" for themselves and their spouse. The thought was the lower wages paid to replace them would easily cover the costs of the monthly insurance premium.
I am old enough to remember we negotiated out of our contracts the benefit of lifetime coverage -- and that was in 1992. At the time we had one employee who was covered and we agreed he would be covered until he turned 65 (and the union agreed). Many others were not so fortunate. At the same time, our monthly premiums were increasing -- 10, 15, 20, 30 percent (and higher in some parts of our state). It was unsustainable and I wrote a letter to our Republican and Democratic senators at the time telling them so. I also was sitting on a local, rural hospital board as president and we had just the opposite problem. Doctors no longer wanted to be sole providers -- they wanted to be in group practice so that they had 8-5 hours and weekends off with coverage at nights and on weekends. Most family practice physicians went back to school so they could become "specialists" with the ability to make far higher wages which created shortages of doctors who would practice in family practice settings in rural areas. Specialists were needed to set a broken arm, remove an appendix, remove tonsils, read an x-ray, etc. Again, they, too, wanted to be in groups because they wanted coverage so as to not have to work long hours or weekends. In other words, a small independent hospital could not survive or compete with larger metro centers. Today that hospital was purchased and is part of a larger health care system -- and a competitor is building across the street from them. Benolvio likes to say doctors like single practice so they can make more money -- baloney. He obviously has never worked or participated in the health care areas.
Doctors and hospitals also have to keep three sets of books -- one of what they charge; one that they are likely to collect; and one that includes the discounts they have to give insurance companies who capitate rates -- or what they will actually make. As a provider, you have to look at your payer mix: do you have too many uninsured people? Too many on Medicaid/Medicare? More on private insurance? It was critical because if you have uninsured, you also will unlikely collect anything.
Contrary to the US system, most of the rest of the world does not rely on employers to furnish insurance but instead chose to offer it through single payer-type systems. We are doing a project in Canada now and looking at a province health care system. Yes, there are problems because they run it like a business (which Republicans always scream they want here but never would if it came to be). The problem when you run things like a business is that you don't build redunant capacity into the system except for what might often be used. In other words, you only field two ambulances rather than four because you'll use 1 about 95% of the time and the other about 50% of the time. Extra ambulances would likely sit unused high percentages and thus are not justified. The problem is that leaves little when you do have surges (which most system experience during daytime hours). The same is true for hospitals -- if your problem is not critical you will wait. However, I just had a conference call and asked about replacements and they laughed when I gave them these numbers. Whether you want to admit it or not, you will also wait in the US. Should you have no insurance, you will possibly wait a long time (if you can have it at all).
So who does profit in the US system? Insurance companies. Pharmaceutical companies. Hospitals are struggling as are doctors because their rates are artificially capitated by the insurance companies. Yes, they can choose to not take the insurance but I remember when Sparrow Hospital in Lansing (a very large, very expansive health care system) got in a fight with Blue Cross over capitated rates and said they would no longer accept them. After about two months of losing 50% of their customer base to competitors, they reached an agreement with BC-BS. While you can fight city hall, you definately cannot fight the insurance industry.
The ideal would be something like a single payer system with group purchasing and rates but the Dems did not have the votes to pass it over the insurance lobbying and the Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to do anything that might give Obama some signature achievement. So what we have is better than what we had but it is not the solution. However, the stupidity and timidity of Republicans to engage on a solution to instead focus on 30 second sound bites for FOX is simply prolonging the inevitable to a time when adults again occupy the Congress.
But in order to look at how we got here and devise a fix (something that Republicans don't even want to look at dispite the fact that "Obamacare" is a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation and Republicans), you have to dissect the system and understand positives and negatives occurring in other countries.
The auto companies (not unions) were largely responsible for the health care "insurance" format that has been used in the United States -- and is unlike most others around the world. In order to entice workers to remain with the company and to make it look like they were "giving" something to employees that would distinguish them from any other firm, the auto companies began offering health insurance. My father was a union president -- albeit a division of an AFL-CIO with only about 10,000 members. In the beginning, premiums were dollars -- literally -- to afford health insurance to members. For good measure, the companies also provided life insurance -- at $1.25 per month cost -- but it was something unlike other employees enjoyed. You also have to remember that during this period, penicillin was just being discovered along with vaccines for polio (my older brother had it, I was six years younger and got the vaccine which was free). You want to the local doctor's office for an x-ray or when you were ill; there was little in the way of "wellness exams" such as annual physicals or breast screening or colonoscopies. Everyone also smoked (including our primary doctor who also employed my mom). Doctors were largely single practice and made housecalls. Our family doctor started seeing patients in the dining room of his house until he could afford to buy a small office building and begin adding rooms and exam equipment. He purchased an x-ray machine so you could get your lungs checked if necessary or so that he could set your broken arm/leg in the office. Specialists were unheard of because there was no such thing as open heart surgery or transplants. Should you have a heart attack, you went to the hospital where you were placed in ICU for four days and observed while they tried to balance your body chemistry. There were no catheterizations, no stents, no bypasses; after you "rested" you were sent home and told to take it easy. You probably lit a cigarette up just outside the hospital and had probably been brought to the hospital by private car because the ambulance was being used as a hearse by the local funeral home at the time (the joke used to be that if the patient showed signs of life when you came to the fork in the road you took a right to the hospital. Otherwise it was a left and to the funeral home slab).
Unions loved knowing that their employees had "special benefits" which distinguished them from other groups. It wasn't until health care began making leaps with different antibiotics, testing equipment, and invasive treatments that costs suddenly rose (and sharply). Local governments and many businesses never set aside future money to pay for healthcare but instead offered employees "lifetime coverage" for themselves and their spouse. The thought was the lower wages paid to replace them would easily cover the costs of the monthly insurance premium.
I am old enough to remember we negotiated out of our contracts the benefit of lifetime coverage -- and that was in 1992. At the time we had one employee who was covered and we agreed he would be covered until he turned 65 (and the union agreed). Many others were not so fortunate. At the same time, our monthly premiums were increasing -- 10, 15, 20, 30 percent (and higher in some parts of our state). It was unsustainable and I wrote a letter to our Republican and Democratic senators at the time telling them so. I also was sitting on a local, rural hospital board as president and we had just the opposite problem. Doctors no longer wanted to be sole providers -- they wanted to be in group practice so that they had 8-5 hours and weekends off with coverage at nights and on weekends. Most family practice physicians went back to school so they could become "specialists" with the ability to make far higher wages which created shortages of doctors who would practice in family practice settings in rural areas. Specialists were needed to set a broken arm, remove an appendix, remove tonsils, read an x-ray, etc. Again, they, too, wanted to be in groups because they wanted coverage so as to not have to work long hours or weekends. In other words, a small independent hospital could not survive or compete with larger metro centers. Today that hospital was purchased and is part of a larger health care system -- and a competitor is building across the street from them. Benolvio likes to say doctors like single practice so they can make more money -- baloney. He obviously has never worked or participated in the health care areas.
Doctors and hospitals also have to keep three sets of books -- one of what they charge; one that they are likely to collect; and one that includes the discounts they have to give insurance companies who capitate rates -- or what they will actually make. As a provider, you have to look at your payer mix: do you have too many uninsured people? Too many on Medicaid/Medicare? More on private insurance? It was critical because if you have uninsured, you also will unlikely collect anything.
Contrary to the US system, most of the rest of the world does not rely on employers to furnish insurance but instead chose to offer it through single payer-type systems. We are doing a project in Canada now and looking at a province health care system. Yes, there are problems because they run it like a business (which Republicans always scream they want here but never would if it came to be). The problem when you run things like a business is that you don't build redunant capacity into the system except for what might often be used. In other words, you only field two ambulances rather than four because you'll use 1 about 95% of the time and the other about 50% of the time. Extra ambulances would likely sit unused high percentages and thus are not justified. The problem is that leaves little when you do have surges (which most system experience during daytime hours). The same is true for hospitals -- if your problem is not critical you will wait. However, I just had a conference call and asked about replacements and they laughed when I gave them these numbers. Whether you want to admit it or not, you will also wait in the US. Should you have no insurance, you will possibly wait a long time (if you can have it at all).
So who does profit in the US system? Insurance companies. Pharmaceutical companies. Hospitals are struggling as are doctors because their rates are artificially capitated by the insurance companies. Yes, they can choose to not take the insurance but I remember when Sparrow Hospital in Lansing (a very large, very expansive health care system) got in a fight with Blue Cross over capitated rates and said they would no longer accept them. After about two months of losing 50% of their customer base to competitors, they reached an agreement with BC-BS. While you can fight city hall, you definately cannot fight the insurance industry.
The ideal would be something like a single payer system with group purchasing and rates but the Dems did not have the votes to pass it over the insurance lobbying and the Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to do anything that might give Obama some signature achievement. So what we have is better than what we had but it is not the solution. However, the stupidity and timidity of Republicans to engage on a solution to instead focus on 30 second sound bites for FOX is simply prolonging the inevitable to a time when adults again occupy the Congress.
P
peeonme
Guest
There are some "ifs" involved, if he was eligible for "COBRA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985
could afford the payments and signed up for it within (I believe) 30 days of his last day of employment.
Now with the Affordable Care Act he or she has the option of going to the "market place" to chose a policy with in again a fixed period of time, in the market place a persons income is taken into account and a government subsidy is given in the form of an advanced tax credit.
This is the type of insurance I have at this time, I have a deductible of $2,500. per year, I must hit that before any prescriptions are covered. My wife is older than myself and is on Medicare, I pay the premium on a supplemental policy.
I digress, back to the woman with breast cancer, if they have few assets (in Michigan it's $3000.00 with only one car) and are under the income level of (if I recall properly) 1 and 1/2 times the national poverty level, then she may qualify for Medicaid, a program ran by the State(s) supplemented by the federal government.
These are all that I know of, I do not claim this to be exhaustive, there might be some typed of health care that I am unaware of.
A single payer system where all have coverage would surely simplify this.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
A single-payer system doesn't have to mean it's all paid for by taxes; employers could be required to pay a portion. We could also re-assign the revenue from fines to go into the system, which would remove the incentive of law enforcement agencies to hand out as many fines as possible to pad their budgets. Fines from corporations could be collected as stock, and the stock tossed into an endowment, the income from which could also go into the system. On top of that, inheritance taxes shouldn't go into the general budget, either, as that gives politicians an incentive to have high inheritance taxes, so throw them in as well.
Nor would it have to be under government control; make it an independent foundation something like the Red Cross.
But one thing should be made clear: medical care is not a right. A right is something that comes with self-ownership, and anything that violate self-ownership cannot be a right. Since medical care requires in at lest some instances that others are paying for one person's care, that is a violation of the payer's self-ownership, and it is therefore not a right.
On the other hand, it makes sense as a national obligation. If we are a people, not merely a collection of selfish, competing individuals, then we owe it to those with needs to care as best we can.
On the gripping hand, it makes economic sense; a unified payer system would be more efficient, however the needed revenues are collected. The cost to doctors, hospitals, clinics, labs, etc. of keeping track of who has what insurance and which is to be billed for what services, and meeting the different requirements of each different insurer, is not negligible. Reduce that to one system, and we all save.
Nor would it have to be under government control; make it an independent foundation something like the Red Cross.
But one thing should be made clear: medical care is not a right. A right is something that comes with self-ownership, and anything that violate self-ownership cannot be a right. Since medical care requires in at lest some instances that others are paying for one person's care, that is a violation of the payer's self-ownership, and it is therefore not a right.
On the other hand, it makes sense as a national obligation. If we are a people, not merely a collection of selfish, competing individuals, then we owe it to those with needs to care as best we can.
On the gripping hand, it makes economic sense; a unified payer system would be more efficient, however the needed revenues are collected. The cost to doctors, hospitals, clinics, labs, etc. of keeping track of who has what insurance and which is to be billed for what services, and meeting the different requirements of each different insurer, is not negligible. Reduce that to one system, and we all save.
P
peeonme
Guest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health
Right to health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The right to health is the economic, social and cultural right to a universal minimum standard of health to which all individuals are entitled. The concept of a right to health has been enumerated in international agreements which include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, there remains some international variation in the interpretation and application of the right to health due to considerations such as how health is defined, what minimum entitlements are encompassed in a right to health, and which institutions are responsible for ensuring a right to health.
Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Preamble of the U.S. Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I believe (along with many others) that health care is indeed a human right, a responsible, decent government will afford this right to it's citizens.
You pose some interesting ideas, such as what to do with fines collected, one way to provide money for health care is to cut military waste.
JohnnyAnger
OOOG AKBAR
Yes, we all pay into a national insurance so that all those (including ourselves) get support when we are ill,retired, sick or unemployed.
P
peeonme
Guest
There have been various trains of thought on this, but if it is an entitlement (I believe that it is, as do many others) then all are entitled.
Those who don't work don't pay bills, they get health care at the most expensive place... the emergency department, we would find it cheaper to pay for an office visit at a walk in clinic.
You are avoiding the problem of those who choose to be unemployed. The criminals, the underclass who have an cash income but do not report it, repairmen, lawn workers, baby setters, escorts etc. Do women who have illegitimate children to live on welfare also get free health care?
otters
Sage Art Exiles Warden.
Ah, 2 Thess. 3:10 — excellent
Well, benvolio: if you would be an actually educated person, you would know that Saint Paul had those people in mind whose only "work" is detaching coupons; "shareholders", in other words.
P
peeonme
Guest
It's a sad attempt to use repairmen, lawn workers, baby setters, escorts etc as a ligament argument against human rights...
M
If health care is a right, others must work to pay for it, right? Why does not everyone have the obligation to work to give others health care? How can you say that some people can refuse to work while others are obligated to work to give them health care?
If health care is a right, others must work to pay for it, right? Why does not everyone have the obligation to work to give others health care? How can you say that some people can refuse to work while others are obligated to work to give them health care?