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 Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.

Healthcare going forward

Canada has free healthcare, but we also have health cards. No card? No healthcare.
Or, more accurately, "you're on your own" - and chances are that your health care will STILL cost less than one-half of what it does on this side of the border, right?

It is completely irresponsible (understatement) for a Government to take away Health insurance from [STRIKE]thousands upon thousands[/STRIKE] MILLIONS of citizens without a back up plan in place,
Fixed it for you.

Illegals...they can recieve emergency medicaid, including labor and deliver and in some states prenatal.
As well as other people, because of the Act that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987. Yiou'd love to see that repealed, too, so that if you're poor and sick there is ABSOLUTELY no recourse of any kind, and people would be dropping dead in the streets like they do in India, Zimbabwe, etc.

democrats will always work to give insurance free to as many of their voters as possible at the expense of Republicans as much as possible.
I want to see both Democrats and Republicans have equal opportunities for insurance and, in fact, ALL be covered. (h, and others too.)

Feel free to actually explain to me a good enough reason as to why a party that was so ready to do away with the ACA had no plans of their own.
Oh, but they HAVE presented a plan...years ago. Health Savings Accounts. So that, only if you're rich and can afford to sock away hundreds of thousands of dollars into SAVINGS of some kind, you're covered. Otherwise, if you have a preexisting condition - such as, perhaps, being a woman, or having had near-fatal pneumonia when you were 11 years old - then screw you. THAT is how they think.

That RAPE BABY, which will be born without arms or legs, is going to be BORN, Goddammit!!! - don't you DARE think of aborting it! But once it's born, it's on its own. In no way will we subsidize a penny of help for you. Just let it die. Repukes.
 
That's another thing that needs to be changed: our credit-oriented society. An education is expensive enough, but when people have to take out loans it effectively makes the cost even more ridiculous.

I'd hazard a guess that students who've been saddled with large debts from fees charged by profitable institutions will be more likely to be compelled to charge as much as the market will bear to pay their loans. That sets up their charging behavior.

I'd also guess that those who are grades and prestige-focused might be less prone to humanitarian acts (there will always be exceptions though).
 
I'd hazard a guess that students who've been saddled with large debts from fees charged by profitable institutions will be more likely to be compelled to charge as much as the market will bear to pay their loans. That sets up their charging behavior.

I'd also guess that those who are grades and prestige-focused might be less prone to humanitarian acts (there will always be exceptions though).

So end the profit-taking by banks on funding schooling by finding another way, and reduce medical costs.

And open more medical schools and thus more slots and enable more students to fill them, and get more doctors who are interested in being humanitarian.


On a personal note, I've been impressed at some of the specialists I've met and interacted with over the last couple of years. The ones at Adventist Health seem very committed to providing care and not so interested in making money (I should look into Adventist's pay system; I suspect they're salaried so they can attend to patients and not sweat billings). The same seems true of those at the clinic I go to for joints, where I got my hips done. This is in contrast to some of the closer local specialists who are one reason I am willing to travel an hour and a half to see the specialists I've needed. My guess is if we came up with a system that ended the debt burden we'd see better work by doctors because of less stress financially.
 
Or, more accurately, "you're on your own" - and chances are that your health care will STILL cost less than one-half of what it does on this side of the border, right?

I'd like to see the figures. But I suspect that a significant reason costs are lower is that education is likely cheaper and the doctors aren't slaves to paying back loans.

Once upon a time conservatives believed that debt was slavery -- now they seem to adore it as a demigod of the great lord Money.

As well as other people, because of the Act that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987.

Back before the compassion leaked out of the conservatives.
 
Another aspect of health care for the future: we need to double the number of hospital beds in the U.S., at a minimum. There's not a place in the country where there are enough beds in case of a real emergency.
 
Or, more accurately, "you're on your own" - and chances are that your health care will STILL cost less than one-half of what it does on this side of the border, right?

Without healthcare, my hip replacement surgery a few years ago, plus the week's stay in hospital, would have cost me just over $22,000. I don't know how that would compare with the States.
 
...Back before the compassion leaked out of the conservatives.
Even more alarmingly is the loss of a sense of public responsibility. The reason that legislation like Hill-Burton and EMTALA was passed was to send a message to the healthcare industry: "You don't pay income taxes because you're 'not-for-profit'. The federal government is sending you billions of dollars through Medicaid and Medicaid. Take care of the people in your community, regardless of their ability to pay".


On another subject about healthcare finance...
There's a lot of propaganda out there saying that the ACA is running up the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office signed off on the ACA in 2009, they attested that the overall plan was "budget neutral" when viewed over a 10 year period. Basically, that means that the plan was structured so that taxes and reduction in payments offset the increased cost of the bill. This was a big deal.

One of the things that hospitals have been very frustrated about is that the hospital industry agreed to $155 billion in Medicare payment reductions to offset the costs of the ACA. Because many Southern states in the US did not accept the Medicaid expansion and because there has not been pressure to get younger citizens to enroll in insurance plans, hospitals are still having to eat the cost of care for uninsured patients in those states.

If the ACA gets repealed, the cost reductions to Medicare go away. ACA reductions in supplemental payments for underserved areas and cost reductions agreed to by the pharmaceutical industry will also be repealed.

This is clearly explained in a CBO report. Here's the report and here's the graph that shows what will happen.

50252-home-figure1.png

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that, over the next decade, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would probably increase budget deficits with or without considering the effects of macroeconomic feedback.

So, ask yourself why are the Republicans in such a hurry to repeal the ACA? Well, it's because ultra-rich donors (the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family, Corbin Robertson Jr, Richard Gilliam, Phillip Anschutz, Richard Strong, Ken Langone, Robert Mercer and others) are paying a substantial tax to support the ACA. They don't want to pay the tax and they're pressuring the recipients of their lobbying fund to repeal it through front organizations like Americans For Prosperity, Freedom Partners Action Fund, et al.
In the face of expanding energy regulations, stepped-up Democratic attacks and the ongoing fight over Obamacare, the billionaire Koch brothers and scores of wealthy allies have set an initial 2014 fundraising target of $290 million which should boost GOP candidates and support dozens of conservative groups--including a new energy initiative with what looks like a deregulatory, pro-consumer spin, The Daily Beast has learned.
Source

Who is the front man for the repeal effort? Mike Pence.
As Trump prepares to take office, Pence -- a 12-year veteran of Congress -- is becoming his liaison to Capitol Hill. Trump is even tapping Marc Short, a longtime Pence aide and Koch brothers operative, as his legislative adviser.

There was an article in USA Today laid out the numbers:

It turns out that taking away health insurance from struggling families can be a windfall for the well-to-do. The top 0.1% of households—those with income of at least $3.7 million a year—would receive a tax cut of about $197,000 in 2017, on average, if the ACA is repealed, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans would see the cost of their private health insurance skyrocket because they would lose ACA subsidies used to pay their premiums. The increased costs would range from about $4,000 to $6,000 per family, depending on income level. Taking away subsidies would make health insurance unaffordable for most of these families.
 
He/She is not the only one, I have seen a couple posts on twitter saying the same. Speaks absolute volumes about his voter base.
 
Without healthcare, my hip replacement surgery a few years ago, plus the week's stay in hospital, would have cost me just over $22,000. I don't know how that would compare with the States.

That's from half to two-thirds of what it would cost here. As I recall, my total was about $36,000 per hip. Thanks to the hospital where I had it done being very highly rated, insurance paid all of the hospital costs, so my share was less than 10% of that.
 
Obamacare, like all democrat programs is a power grab by the Federal government and its bureaucracy. Doctors spend more and more time on paper work, even as they are paid less. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/health/obamacare-doctors-opinions-aca/
It is one more step toward totalitarian control.

You're worried about the time doctors spend on paperwork?

The quickest way to reduce their paperwork by over four-fifths would be to have just one national insurance company.
 
You're worried about the time doctors spend on paperwork?

The quickest way to reduce their paperwork by over four-fifths would be to have just one national insurance company.
It's true that the paperwork and red tape as increased. It's also true that managed care is the worst offender. Having to get referrals for doctor visits. Having to get treatment authorizations. Complicated billing and complicated explanation of benefits. It's why there's at 1-2 people in every physician office who spend their days in a call queue with insurance companies.

It's also true that the insurance company that has the smallest amount of overhead is the Medicare system. The issue is that Medicare is underfunded - the program is still paying out more than it takes in.
 
The more time the doctors spend on paperwork, the fewer patients seen and the higher the bills. More clerical help to be paid from doctors fees.
 
^Irrelevant. Providers can charge whatever they want. Insurers pay only the contracted amount and the patient is only liable for the contracted amount.

And again, the driver for increased paperwork and increased staff is managed care plans- commercial HMOs.
 
^Irrelevant. Providers can charge whatever they want. Insurers pay only the contracted amount and the patient is only liable for the contracted amount.

The amount of the charge can be quite relevant for the uninsured – assuming they intend to pay the bill.
 
The amount of the charge can be quite relevant for the uninsured – assuming they intend to pay the bill.

At some point, billing uninsured people for more than the typical cost for treatments starts to look like speculative invoicing.

Or trying for everything they're worth from the get-go.
 
Without healthcare, my hip replacement surgery a few years ago, plus the week's stay in hospital, would have cost me just over $22,000. I don't know how that would compare with the States.
A cursory check looks like about $40,000 here on the average.

Facebook is all a twitter
I see what you did.
 
A cursory check looks like about $40,000 here on the average.

By the way, the only thing I had to pay was $45 for the ambulance. OHIP doesn't pay that.

A year or so ago, a couple from Canada were vacationing in the States. The woman was pregnant, but not due for at least a month. The baby was premature and was born in hospital there. When all was said and done, the couple received a bill for just over $200,000 US. They had travel insurance, but giving birth wasn't covered, probably because the pregnancy was a pre-existing condition.
 
Back
Top