Yeah, I see that, Lisa. The patient pays if they can't afford supplemental insurance...
National Healthcare for the USA
by sammielee24 348 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
SWALKER
Swalker with the financial acumen and reasoning like you've shown on the thread, it's no wonder you "were" the manager of a company.
Not that I feel the need to explain myself to you, but rather to show how insensitive you come off....the reason I'm no longer president is due to inoperable degenerative disc disease. It's very disabling, very painful and life altering. As a matter of fact, I go in frequently for spinal epidurals and will be getting one tomorrow. The odds of surviving surgery are slim....if I were to survive it could leave me paralyzed for the rest of my life...so for now, I choose to endure the pain. Thanks for your concern and kindness.
Swalker
-
sammielee24
Little Toe - please bear in mind too that you have to be covered by medicare in order for that first 80 to be covered by them! For anyone falling in between the cracks that isn't covered by medicare - you pay it all and often upfront - before you get the service!!!! I just called for quotes for an eye exam and the lowest cost is $65.00 at Walmart with the highest being $275.00 at an optometrist. Walmart is booked up for a month solid and the optometrist is booked up until the end of September. Now - I can get in at a location that is a 2 1/2 hour drive away and it will cost $125.00 for the exam or another place only 1 1/2 hours away and the cost is only $105.00 for the exam. I'm travelling to the one an hour and a half away simply because I need the exam. The lines for medical service that everyone keeps harping on with the Canadian system and the length of time it takes to get an appointment is no less in the USA. Every system has it's worms.
The argument as posted by LDH can't be taken without a lot of other factors as you say, being contemplated - genetics, environment, preventative measures, education - all for a few. I would ask if the government funded healthcare is for all the residents of South Dakota or just the American Indian population. This would provide a more accurate view of healthcare within that state. Does it apply to reservation or non reservation people or both? I have no doubt there are problems, just as there are in every system, but there are a whole host of other issues to deal with on this subject.
If the South Dakota American Indians are in fact covered by a national healthcare system as she indicates - well, first off, they aren't included in the 45 million who still have no access to even that level of care and secondly, they are cared for by doctors within the USA - and if profit is their mandate, then substandard care will follow.
sammieswife.
-
LDH
http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ins/main/faqs/insurance_rate/
Having worked for a major carrier for the Western United States , I'm familiar with Hawaii 's rules. It's pretty hard to find an insurer in the state with fair rates..FAQ's Regarding Health Insurance Rate Oversight
What is rate oversight?
Rate oversight requires health plans to let the public and the Insurance Division know how they set premiums. The Division will review the premiums to make sure that they are adequate and not excessive or unfairly discriminatory.How does rate oversight benefit consumers?
Rate oversight can result in the elimination of excessive insurer profits as well as the elimination of underpricing. This may encourage increased competition in the market. The Division’s review will make certain that the calculations are correct and include only necessary costs, which will enable consumers to make choices without fear that they are being gouged or that the insurer will leave the market or become insolvent.Does rate oversight harm health plans or providers?
No. Well-managed plans with fair rates should not fear oversight. Providers will benefit because oversight will be used to make certain that premiums are used to pay for necessary health care expenses.Will health plans or providers have additional costs as a result of rate oversight?
Providers should have no additional costs as a result of rate oversight. Health plans will be required to provide information to support their rate calculations, but this is information that they already have, because it was used to develop the rates that they charge their members. Rate oversight provides a double-check on the health plans’ premium calculations.
http://www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/hi.pdf
Lisa
-
sammielee24
Thanks for your concern and kindness
Watch it Swalker...you might make her cry. As you know she is the epitome of human kindness and her well of compassion is full because she doesn't take the time to drink from it. sammieswife.
-
sammielee24
A little message that I thought was interesting re the healthcare of the American Indian situation - the fight continues to have the acts reauthorized -
I am happy to respond to your two questions regarding the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 1) Will Congress act upon reauthorization of P.L. 94-437 this year? Probably not. Both bodies of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, as is the White House. In fact, much of Washington, D.C., and its insiders are conservative Republicans as well. They have no interest in enacting responsible health policy for non-Indians, let alone Indian health policy. Why? Because it will cost more and this party would prefer to arrange massive tax breaks for the wealthy and spend our tax dollars (Indian and non-Indian) on the war in Iraq or on multi-billion dollar contractors like Halliburton. The Vice-President's former company was awarded a no-bid contract worth over $7 Billion to help rebuild Iraq. Time Magazine spelled this out on 5/30/04. I don't think our Nation's First Americans whose per capita expenditure for health is worth less than $1,100, as compared to $5,000 plus for our Federal Prison Inmates, were even on the radar screen when this appropriation of Federal funds was awarded.
Do Democrats who support Indian Health funding deserve our support? Yes, definitely. The most recent push to increase the IHS budget by $3.44 billion was decided on a straight party line vote back in March of this year. I believe the vote was 51 to 48 opposing the increase. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell did not vote in support of the increase, nor did many of the Republican Senators with large Indian populations. The only Indian organization to highlight the need for support on this amendment was NCAI. With a difference of 4 votes, Indian people could be enjoying better health care this year. It would have been great if Senators Stevens, Murkowski, Domenici, and McCain had voted to support their native people. Instead, the energy rich Americans with financial interests in oil and gas are making a bundle and our people continue to suffer from limited health resources. The $7 billion to Halliburton is only one contract, just imagine how much more is being expended on foreign aid and prolonged war efforts. On the homefront, we know the States scored $75 billion in new Homeland Security resources right after 9/11. And the tribes got less than $275,000 at last report.
-
LDH
Little Toe - please bear in mind too that you have to be covered by medicare in order for that first 80 to be covered by them! For anyone falling in between the cracks that isn't covered by medicare - you pay it all and often upfront - before you get the service!!!! I just called for quotes for an eye exam and the lowest cost is $65.00 at Walmart with the highest being $275.00 at an optometrist. Walmart is booked up for a month solid and the optometrist is booked up until the end of September. Now - I can get in at a location that is a 2 1/2 hour drive away and it will cost $125.00 for the exam or another place only 1 1/2 hours away and the cost is only $105.00 for the exam. I'm travelling to the one an hour and a half away simply because I need the exam. The lines for medical service that everyone keeps harping on with the Canadian system and the length of time it takes to get an appointment is no less in the USA. Every system has it's worms.
This is making me laugh. Back on the drama pill, huh? You didn't know you needed an eye exam a month ago? What you woke up today and your eyes went wacky? Could it be that you've been reading to much leftist material? You love your drama, huh?
As you know she is the epitome of human kindness and her well of compassion is full because she doesn't take the time to drink from it.
LOL! Good one!
SWalker as a President of a 300 life company, you would have had an entire compensation package which included long-term disability and health care that you could convert. While your life is no picnic, you are just pissed off now because you don't have the same benefits that worked for you for many years.
SWIFE You are just pissed that I can find the holes in your arguments. It's too easy.
Lisa
HR Queen Class
-
sammielee24
Get a grip. I am part Native American. Grew up near the Lafayette NY Indian Reservation. I think I know
So then - you know all about tax dollars and national care of every sort. Does that mean that you support American Indians receiving national healthcare but not anyone else? Doesn't that go against your planning and your 'too bad for you no matter who you are if you don't have the cash' attitude? If you support national healthcare for one specific group of people, regardless if they are able bodied young men and women between the ages of 18 and 60 - if you support them because of who they are and not based on their need - then we have another issue don't we? sammieswife.
-
LDH
As you know she is the epitome of human kindness and her well of compassion is full because she doesn't take the time to drink from it.
LOL! Good one!Too busy laughing to add that I offered on the other thread (and said offer still stands) to show my family's charitable contributions vs. yours or anyone else's, using tax returns.
Of course, you and your ilk ignored that. Could it be, that for all of your talk, you don't give a damn penny to anyone?!?!?!?
Lisa
-
LDH
So then - you know all about tax dollars and national care of every sort. Does that mean that you support American Indians receiving national healthcare but not anyone else? Doesn't that go against your planning and your 'too bad for you no matter who you are if you don't have the cash' attitude? If you support national healthcare for one specific group of people, regardless if they are able bodied young men and women between the ages of 18 and 60 - if you support them because of who they are and not based on their need - then we have another issue don't we? sammieswife.
No,
and I don't approve of them getting monthly payments from the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) nor a free education because they won some bizarre birth lottery of entitlement.
Any other questions?