With Obamacare making it mandatory to cover children already covered by private insurance, within a few weeks, insurance companies are starting to drop child-only plans due to cost and Obamacare regulation compliance issues. As other Obamacare benefits come on line additional premium hikes will be coming from your healthcare provider. If you have private insurance being offered by your employer it may be coming to an end with the higher premiums the employer or you may have to pay.

Obama did promise change and he has not gone back on his word. :smash:

With Obamacare making it mandatory to cover children already covered by private insurance, within a few weeks, insurance companies are starting to drop child-only plans due to cost and Obamacare regulation compliance issues. As other Obamacare benefits come on line additional premium hikes will be coming from your healthcare provider. If you have private insurance being offered by your employer it may be coming to an end with the higher premiums the employer or you may have to pay.

Obama did promise change and he has not gone back on his word. :smash:

CHANGE = childhood now ends at age 26 :uhuh::rotf2:

I've briefly dodged the bullet. Insurance companies have to get approval from the state in order to increase rates. Tufts wanted to increase our rates something like 18%. Massachusetts rejected the request stating that the 18% increase was not justified.

At least that's a letter we received from Tufts last month.

In the end though, the health care bill with serious F over the middle class.

New HC flow plan.

New HC flow plan.

Powerpoint says it will work, right? Powerpoint never lies.

Powerpoint says it will work, right? Powerpoint never lies.

LOL, powerpoint the be all to end all. :)

I like how at the very top of the flow is the President, IRS, and Congress.
At the very bottom are the Phyisician and Patient. :hihi:

ya can see my grump in the gop forum.

VOTE THIS @%$@#$SUCKER OUT

Should be friggin IMPEACHED but the American public is too much in love with him and his DB wife.

Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and go on Mass Health. All you guys will be paying my health insurance from now on. State says I can afford $232/month based on what I made last year.

HOWS THAT FEEL TO YA!

Food Stamps and subsidized oil next. If ya can't beat em, JOIN EM. :soon:

Instead of fixing the problem he %$%$%$%$ed it up even more. :smash:

Obama had no involvement with commonwealth care which you qualified.
Thank republican governor Romney.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Health care law's price (http://telegram.com/article/20101025/NEWS/10250438/1116)

Not sure if you can read this or not, I'm a subscriber. Good read.

I see the rates doubling within 2 years.

Health care law’s price
Job-related benefits to go?

By R. Alonso-Zaldivar THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The new health care law wasn’t supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.

But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

While it’s too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes. Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn., said the economics of dropping coverage are “about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private.”

That’s just not going to happen, White House officials say.

“The absolute certainty about the Affordable Care Act is that for many, many employers who cover millions of people, it increases the incentives for them to offer coverage,” said Jason Furman, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama.

Yet at least one major employer has shifted a greater share of plan costs to workers, and others are weighing the pros and cons of eventually forcing employees to strike out on their own.

“I don’t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ‘We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

“My conclusion on all of this is that it is a huge roll of the dice,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents big company benefits administrators. “It could work out well and build on the employer-based system, or it could begin to dismantle the employer-based system.”

Employer health benefits have been a middle-class mainstay since World War II, when companies were encouraged to offer health insurance instead of pay raises. About 150 million workers and family members are now covered.

When lawmakers debated the legislation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would only have minimal impact on employer plans. About 3 million fewer people would be covered through the job, but they’d be able to get insurance elsewhere.

Two provisions in the new law are leading companies to look at their plans in a different light.

One is a hefty tax on high-cost health insurance aimed at the most generous coverage. Although the “Cadillac tax” doesn’t hit until 2018, companies may have to disclose their exposure to investors well before that. Karen Forte, a Boeing spokeswoman, said concerns about the tax were partly behind a 50 percent increase in insurance deductibles the company just announced.

The tax is 40 percent of the value of a plan above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan. Family coverage now averages about $13,800.

White House adviser Furman said blaming a cost increase next year on a tax that won’t take effect for eight years “stretches credibility very far past the breaking point.”

Bigger questions loom over the new insurance markets that will be set up under the law.

They’re called exchanges, and every state will have one in a few years. Consumers will be able to shop for coverage among a range of plans in the exchange, with a guarantee they can’t be turned down because of an existing medical problem. To help make premiums affordable, the law provides tax credits for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, about $88,000 for a family of four.

Bredesen said last week that employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They’d face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that’s still way less than the cost of providing health insurance. Employers could even afford to give workers a raise and still come out ahead, Bredesen wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

Employers are actively looking at that. “I don’t know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism,” said Deloitte’s Keckley, the consultant.

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the senators who wrote that part of the law, says she’s confident that when companies do the math, they’ll decide to keep offering coverage.

That’s because employers get to deduct the cost of workers’ health care from the company’s taxes. Take away the health plan and two things happen: Employers lose the deduction and they’ll probably have to pay workers more to get them to accept the benefit cut. Not only will the company’s income taxes go up, but the employer will also face a bigger bill for Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. So it’s not as simple as paying $2,000 and walking away.

“It is clearly cheaper for employers to continue providing coverage,” Shields said.

Another wrinkle: the health insurance tax credits available through the law are keyed to relatively Spartan insurance plans, not as generous as most big employers provide. Send your workers into the insurance exchange, and valuable employees might jump to a competitor that still offers health care.

MIT economist Jon Gruber says it’s impossible to create new government benefits without some unintended consequences, but he doesn’t see a big drop in employer coverage.

Obama care has crushed big hospitals, led to major HMO contract renegotiations, and major medicare cuts. Less reimbursement at my work caused no merit increases for a couple years, and 2% merit increases for 2011.

I need to go back to business as usual. At least with Bush I had more money coming into the house and I was 10x more apt to spend.

And so the HC Debacle continues.

3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.

Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.

This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.

What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?

Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.

For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade.And so the HC Debacle continues.

3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.

Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.

This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.

What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.

For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so what Spence is trying to say is despite the countless hours spent by our congress and the president and the additonal debt and tax burden, this healthcare bill will do nothing to change YOUR expenses. Things are going down hill and will continue to. So lets make sure we dont return to "the failed policies of the GOP"

I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.

People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.

Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"

What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?

The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me

I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.

People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.

Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"

What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?

The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me

Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.

They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.

They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.

Thats how they do life insurance. evil socialist life insurance I guess

What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.

And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.

An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.

I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?

As a side note, take a listen to this clown:

YouTube - The Rent Is Too Damn High Party's Jimmy McMillan at the NY Governor Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0)

Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.

They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.

Whats socialist about it is that its NONE OF THE GOVTS BUSINESS. Let the market do its thing.
All of this is EXACTLY why government should not be involved in insurance or healthcare. We get dangeroulsy close to infringing on the rights of citizens.

THAT CLOWN DOESN'T EVEN PAY RENT!!!! He was outed several days later that he's stiffed every landlord he's ever had!!

And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.

An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.

I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?

As a side note, take a listen to this clown:

YouTube - The Rent Is Too Damn High Party's Jimmy McMillan at the NY Governor Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0)

yeah, but he is funny, has a great first name and a cool moustache too

I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?

The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.

The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.

my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer. :smash:

The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.

Don't forget about active people who don't use rubbers, need to add them to the list.

Don't forget about active people who don't use rubbers, need to add them to the list.

good point

wet feet often end up causing colds and flu :)

my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer. :smash:

Exceptions to the rule. So the average fat smoker is healthier than the average person that eats well and is fit?

The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.

An unhealthy life style is in the eye of the beholder. Fishing the canal several nights in a row is not very healthy. How about the goverment take care of defense and infrustructure and stay the hell out of my fridge. Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great. :fury:

Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.

For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.

According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.

Now add all the soon to retire" yuppie generation" and i don't want to do the math.


Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.

Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
imho.

The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.

Any body with a sit in a chair job?

Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great. :fury:

Yup, that's why gambling was legalized and soon to be weed.

Funny article on NPR today about the hempheads in CA NOT wanting the legalization proposition as it would make it good for big business and taxation but bad for the small guy that grows the weed today.
Legalized Pot's Unlikely Supporters: Moms And Cops : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130755883&ps=cprs)

so what Spence is trying to say is despite the countless hours spent by our congress and the president and the additonal debt and tax burden, this healthcare bill will do nothing to change YOUR expenses. Things are going down hill and will continue to. So lets make sure we dont return to "the failed policies of the GOP"
I think there's an alternate narrative that your costs are going up anyway and that long-term the reforms will work to slow the rate of increase while also covering the 40M or so presently uninsured. Remember that most of the bill hasn't even been phased in.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with this story in whole, but the existing trajectory was clearly not sustainable either.

The Health Care Bill won't magically fix the problem, the problem is huge, but it will probably drive the real change necessary to make lasting improvements more real. If this means shifting control of Congress to force bi-partisan reforms then so be it.

-spence

If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.

According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.
Funny, he was upset that Obama (and this is a person who's generally against Obama mind you) wanted to kill Medicare Advantage as part of the legislation. When I explained that their benefits from Medicare Advantage -- even with his cash contribution -- consumed a higher rate of taxpayer money than regular Medicare he didn't seem to care because he felt he was being less dependent on the Government.

Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.
I agree that lawsuits are a problem (and those predatory HMO's trying to kill off the independent practitioner) but tort isn't the root cause. I've seen numbers like 185B or so a year could be saved by tort reform, a lot for sure, but I can't believe it's the main driver behind increases.

They raise rates because they can.

Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
And I support both. Kerry in 2004 proposed that medical malpractice cases should be moved to Federal courts where the standards of evidence were much higher, hence, making frivolous lawsuits more difficult to bring before a court.

I do think that interstate competition is an easy one the Dems should have used as barter to get some Repubs on board. I think it would have a dramatic impact on cost and there's really no counter argument that the average person can understand...it's basic competition and some states really have few choices available.

-spence

An unhealthy life style is in the eye of the beholder. Fishing the canal several nights in a row is not very healthy. How about the goverment take care of defense and infrustructure and stay the hell out of my fridge. Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great. :fury:

The health benefits of being a smoker, obese, and using drugs is in the eye of the beholder?

You're absolutely nuts if you think the average person who is 100lbs overweight won't have higher health care costs over their lifetime than a person.

Exceptions do not make up the rule. Sure, I have met people that smoked for 65 years and lived into their 80s. I've met a whole lot more people that had family members smoke and died in their 50s.

There are people that eat garbage every day and will live to be 90. There are far, far more people that eat garbage and will have their first hear attack or stroke in their 50s.

More than half of Americans are overweight. Diabetes rates are going through the roof.

Why should I - a person who exercises, eats well, and rarely sick even though I work a desk job - pay the same rates as someone that is overweight or a smoker?

So the same government who provides the most unhealthy school lunch program in the world will make you pay more for healthcare for being fat?

Yup, I get it now............

This government has absolutely no common sense and too many loafer citizens & non-citizens looking for a free ride. No way they can manage or should be managing a Healthcare system. The best run institutions are run privately.

Hey, like the government, I'm not perfect, but I get it right at least some of the time.

The health benefits of being a smoker, obese, and using drugs is in the eye of the beholder?

You're absolutely nuts if you think the average person who is 100lbs overweight won't have higher health care costs over their lifetime than a person.

Exceptions do not make up the rule. Sure, I have met people that smoked for 65 years and lived into their 80s. I've met a whole lot more people that had family members smoke and died in their 50s.

There are people that eat garbage every day and will live to be 90. There are far, far more people that eat garbage and will have their first hear attack or stroke in their 50s.

More than half of Americans are overweight. Diabetes rates are going through the roof.

Why should I - a person who exercises, eats well, and rarely sick even though I work a desk job - pay the same rates as someone that is overweight or a smoker?

JD, haven't I seen you smoking a cigar before?

So the same government who provides the most unhealthy school lunch program in the world will make you pay more for healthcare for being fat?

The government wouldn't want any of what I suggest. I think the insurance companies should implement surcharges.

The government provides it, but the parents allow it. If parents don't like what the schools are serving, they could take the 10 minutes at night to make lunch for their kid. The parents should be held responsible for what their kids eat. Also, the one meal a day a kid eats at school isn't going to make them fat. It's the 2 other meals, plus junk food they get at home that does.

JD, haven't I seen you smoking a cigar before?

More than once. And if I have to pay a surcharge on my insurance in order to do so, then I'd have to make a choice. If I lie about it, then get mouth or throat cancer, then the liability is on me.

More than once. And if I have to pay a surcharge on my insurance in order to do so, then I'd have to make a choice. If I lie about it, then get mouth or throat cancer, then the liability is on me.

What if you don't wear sunscreen?

What if you have a dangerous occupation (Cop, Fireman, Fisherman, Construction, Prostitute)?

What if you live with someone who smokes?

What if your house has Radon?

What if you touch lead sinkers?

What if you don't wear rubbers (on your feet)

My original point is where do you draw the line?

What if you don't wear sunscreen?

What if you have a dangerous occupation (Cop, Fireman, Fisherman, Construction, Prostitute)?

What if you live with someone who smokes?

What if your house has Radon?

What if you touch lead sinkers?

What if you don't wear rubbers (on your feet)

My original point is where do you draw the line?

From reason to ridiculous.

What if you don't wear sunscreen?

What if you have a dangerous occupation (Cop, Fireman, Fisherman, Construction, Prostitute)?

What if you live with someone who smokes?

What if your house has Radon?

What if you touch lead sinkers?

What if you don't wear rubbers (on your feet)

My original point is where do you draw the line?

These are the types of questions that ARE asked and ARE taken into consideration in under written states, which most of the country is. The are called riders that won't be covered. Conn is pretty bad for them.
Biggest one that affects your health insurance in under written states (take physical, based on results, they decide how much it costs from person to person), motorcycle riding is a huge mark up. They run a DMV check so you can't lie.
At least here in Mass as a guaranteed issue state, we can all get it, no pre-exisiting condition worries, regardless of what it costs. The problem is in the other states that aren't where people CAN'T get insured due to such issues discussed above, no matter how much they are willing to pay. Sucks paying so much for something you may or may not ever use, but you'll thank god you have it when you do need it.

I need health care. I got none.

From reason to ridiculous.

Ridiculous?

So where do you draw the line? You still haven't really answered it.
Since you feel higher risk people should pay more, how do you classify “high risk’ people? (And not just fat ones or one who smoke). Someone who goes out every day without sunscreen is at high risk for Skin Cancer. Someone who has a lot of unprotected sex has high risk for a lot of things and it goes on and on. Someone who has a lot on stress and anxiety has high risks for cardiovascular issues. Where do you draw the line? I don't think you can………..

No way they can manage or should be managing a Healthcare system. The best run institutions are run privately.



Yup, ever been in a VA,State or County Hospital?
I wouldn't send my dog.

Ridiculous?

So where do you draw the line? You still haven't really answered it.


And like I've asked multiple times, why should I pay the same rates as these people who will statistically have significantly higher health care related costs than I will over my lifetime:
http://www.nsma.org.au/pics2008/fatgirl.jpg
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/fat1.jpg

What you are arguing is a liberal's dream - the many healthy people paying for the few sick people with no ability to discriminate and charge people relative to their use.

And like I've asked multiple times, why should I pay the same rates as these people who will statistically have significantly higher health care related costs than I will over my lifetime:
http://www.nsma.org.au/pics2008/fatgirl.jpg
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/fat1.jpg

What you are arguing is a liberal's dream - the many healthy people paying for the few sick people with no ability to discriminate and charge people relative to their use.


JD's former girlfriends gathered for a reunion recently....

Why should I - a person who exercises, eats well, and rarely sick even though I work a desk job - pay the same rates as someone that is overweight or a smoker?

Because JD, it would be profiling, discriminatory and not PC. :hihi:

And like I've asked multiple times, why should I pay the same rates as these people who will statistically have significantly higher health care related costs than I will over my lifetime:

What you are arguing is a liberal's dream - the many healthy people paying for the few sick people with no ability to discriminate and charge people relative to their use.

Nice pics. I’d bet they don’t (or didn’t) have insurance in the first place.

Read my previous posts,

I think you are getting confused as there are 2 things here
#1 is Government "dictated" healthcare, #2 is identifying people with high risk health coverage.

I'm not a liberal (far from it) and not arguing a liberal's dream. I don't want to pay the same rate as a smoker. I don't think government should tell people what they can or can't do. I don't think the government should be involved in Healthcare. I don't think someone should be paying for health coverage for another free loader (unless it is an elderly retired person who has worked their whole life and is on a fixed income or similar scenario). I'm talking about the people who feel they are entitled to it. I think one should get an education/skill, work hard and pay your insurance premiums. My question is once that is established, where do you draw the line on identifying a "high risk" person? Also, another way to look at this is if your friends in these pictures die of a heart attack at 40 then no more healthcare is need for them but if you live to be 90 then there is 50 more years of health related expense that will have to be paid for your care.

My opinion is the government needs to stay out. If a private insurance company in a free market wants to add to premiums for people who abuse themselves then so be it (still not sure where they would draw the line). But in a free market, they will have to compete with other insurance companies and major employers will be able to negotiate those premiums.

And why do I have more posts on this site about non-fishing related stuff? :confused:

Nice pics. I’d bet they don’t (or didn’t) have insurance in the first place.

Read my previous posts,

I think you are getting confused as there are 2 things here
#1 is Government "dictated" healthcare, #2 is identifying people with high risk health coverage.

...

My opinion is the government needs to stay out. If a private insurance company in a free market wants to add to premiums for people who abuse themselves then so be it (still not sure where they would draw the line). But in a free market, they will have to compete with other insurance companies and major employers will be able to negotiate those premiums.

And why do I have more posts on this site about non-fishing related stuff? :confused:

We are much closer than it appears. I agree the government should stay out. What I've been stating above, and I thought I was clearer, is that the private insurance companies should be applying these surcharges. The government needs to get the hell out of it.

We are much closer than it appears. I agree the government should stay out. What I've been stating above, and I thought I was clearer, is that the private insurance companies should be applying these surcharges. The government needs to get the hell out of it.

Private companies and institutions (who provide private health insurance) can make decisions without Government involvement. My wife is an HR manager for one of the largest companies in the world (over 300,000 employees world wide) and they will have 100% tobacco free campuses by the end of 2011. This was a decision made privately and not by any government. No smoking will be allowed at any of their sites across the world. You can’t use tobacco in your car or while on company property. Her company’s stance is, if you don't like it, you don't have to work here. This was a big deal and particularly big issue with factory workers as they can not get off the property to smoke and be back before their break is over.

That is one of the ways they are trying to urge employees to quit to help reduce Insurance costs

What I've been stating above, and I thought I was clearer, is that the private insurance companies should be applying these surcharges.

This is that part that there may not be a black/white answer to. Is it just the smokers and fat people in your picture album :) ? Not to be a broken record but what about everyone else: Drinkers, Non-Sun Screen users, heavy labor intensive jobs, modercycle riders, sky jumpers, skiiers, shore fisherman who swim out to remote rocks at night, etc, etc. Where is the line in the sand on who pays higher and where does it end?

The reason the govern. stepped in originally is b/c there is no incentive for a private business to cover someone that the business will lose money on. I'm guessing that someone with 1 incident of cancer will have a much higher chance of a repeat. The insur. company cannot make enough money on that one person w/o charging a higher rate. Then your going to have sickness/illness that are so expense that if you have it once and are likely of getting it again, no ins. company will cover you. Now you have someone w/no insur. and when they get sick again, they can't pay the bills. Thus, you have guaranteed issue which spreads the cost of JohnnyD's fat people amongst all of us fit, healthy people.

Insur. comp. can deal with guaranteed issue if everyone in the state is required to have coverage. Without people being able to pick and choose if they want coverage, the ins. comp. can't spread the risk amongt all of us. With guarantee issue you don't have to do risk assessment for smokers or fatties - you spread the risk amongst all of us.

this should fix everything...


BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore City Health Department issued its first environmental citation for repeat violations of the city's trans fat ban.

The Health Department issued Healthy Choice, a food facility in the 400 block of Lexington Street, a $100 fine on Thursday.

"It was the second time they were found with a high trans fat level in their ingredients," said Health Department agent Juan Gutierrez.

Officials said that during inspections in July and this month, the facility was found to be using a margarine product with trans fat levels in excess of what the law allows.

The law banning food facilities from serving or selling non-prepackaged food items containing 0.5 grams or more of trans fats went into effect in September 2009.

"While we are pleased with the high rates of compliance we've seen since the ban took effect, we will continue to sanction businesses that repeatedly fail to comply."
- Dr. Oxiris Barbot, Commissioner of Health

"They originally had a margarine that was above 3 grams, actually, which is very high compared to the .5 that is allowed. Then when we came back and they had replaced it, they replaced it with one that was 2 grams, so it still was too high," Gutierrez said

The reason the govern. stepped in originally is b/c there is no incentive for a private business to cover someone that the business will lose money on.


If that was the reason the Govt stepped in, then why a 3000 page
bill that covers everybody?

Why not a special program or tax credit for those individuals?

They stepped in to take complete control of HC and increase their
power base.

You would approve of special bill to cover certain individuals?

Why do you think the government has passed bills pertaining to health care for the last 60 or 70 years? There were bills proposed/passed by both parties in that time.

Private companies and institutions (who provide private health insurance) can make decisions without Government involvement. My wife is an HR manager for one of the largest companies in the world (over 300,000 employees world wide) and they will have 100% tobacco free campuses by the end of 2011. This was a decision made privately and not by any government. No smoking will be allowed at any of their sites across the world. You can’t use tobacco in your car or while on company property. Her company’s stance is, if you don't like it, you don't have to work here. This was a big deal and particularly big issue with factory workers as they can not get off the property to smoke and be back before their break is over.

That is one of the ways they are trying to urge employees to quit to help reduce Insurance costs

Good. Smokers are less productive in the workplace and are sicker more often.

This is a few years dated but:
Here's another good reason to kick the habit: giving up cigarettes will increase your productivity at work and cut back on your sick leave. A new article in the journal Tobacco Control reports these findings, which result from a 1990 U.S. Office of Technology Assessment study. The research estimated that smokers cost employers $47 billion dollars in early deaths and disability. The scientists tracked the attendance, productivity and perceptions of ticket sales staff for a major U.S. airline.

...

The data showed that smokers took on average nearly three times as much sick leave as did non-smokers, and significantly more time off than ex-smokers as well.

Now tack on that insurance companies offer businesses discounts on health insurance if they don't hire smokers and it's even better of a financial decision for businesses.

This is no different than delivery companies that won't hire people with a bad driving record - I don't and we get reduced vehicle insurance rates because of it.

redlite knows the insurance industry and brought up a good point - the questions you're asking are already being addressed by these companies when decided if they will provide coverage. They make the decision based on how risky you are. My opinion is for them to take it one step further and either provide me a kick-back for being a healthy person or create a surcharge for those who don't.

You want me to draw a line in the sand, then fine - Obesity and smoking - the two biggest causes of preventable deaths in America and two of the most expensive. Done. The line is drawn.

I Googled it so not sure if it is 100% true:

Deaths and Mortality
(Data are for the U.S.)
•Number of deaths: 2,423,712
•Death rate: 803.6 deaths per 100,000 population
•Life expectancy: 77.9 years
•Infant Mortality rate: 6.75 deaths per 1,000 live births

•Heart disease: 616,067
•Cancer: 562,875
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
•Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
•Diabetes: 71,382
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney disease): 46,448
•Septicemia (infections: 34,828

What search terms did you use?

I'm talking preventable deaths. Deaths where an intervention or change in lifestyle could have prevented it.

This chart comes from a medical journal published in 2000:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png
http://proxychi.baremetal.com/csdp.org/research/1238.pdf

Good. Smokers are less productive in the workplace and are sicker more often.


You want me to draw a line in the sand, then fine - Obesity and smoking - the two biggest causes of preventable deaths in America and two of the most expensive.

good thing we have a fat First Lady and chainsmoking President for role models :uhuh: and they are REALLY expensive...

good thing we have a fat First Lady and chainsmoking President for role models :uhuh: and they are REALLY expensive...

Great post. Don't forget about how we got to this mess. Ted Kennedy was another healthy role model responsible for this. "Do as I say, not as I do"

Great post. Don't forget about how we got to this mess. Ted Kennedy was another healthy role model responsible for this. "Do as I say, not as I do"

incomplete thought though...meant to say how lucky we are to have these two who like to lecture us on such things...pretty sure Michelle was caught choking down a cheeseburger and fries recently...I think it was Teds dream that JD help pay for his and all fat people's medical needs...it takes a village you know..

You would approve of special bill to cover certain individuals?



It's already being done for the blind by tax credit.

I'd rather see tax credits to help uninsured individuals to help pay for their HC through private plans rather than completely changing HC for 3o8 million people.

We still don't know how many people don't have HC with estimates ranging
from 20 to 40 million.

Start cutting give a way programs and use the 640 Billion they claim will
be saved from Medicare fraud to make up the loss of tax income.

Obama- care, as seen in recent days, is opening Pandora's box for companies to drop their employees private HC.

this should help too...400 million/year for "FOOD DESERTS" NOT "DESSERTS"

Mrs. Obama’s multi-million dollar anti-obesity initiative seeks to eradicate so-called food deserts. “Right now, 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million kids, live in what we call ‘food deserts’—these are areas without a supermarket,” Obama explained in May. “And as a result these families wind up buying their groceries at the local gas station or convenience store, places that offer few, if any, healthy options.” According to Obama, these “food deserts” lead to increased levels of obesity.



“We’re creating a Healthy Food Financing Initiative that’s going to invest $400 million a year—and leverage hundreds of millions more from the private sector—to bring grocery stores to under-served areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier options,” she announced.

But Jeffrey wonders if the situation is as dire as Mrs. Obama describes it and whether this new financing initiative is warranted. Pointing to a 2008 government study of “food deserts,” Jeffrey concludes the First Lady’s characterization of American “food deserts” is “fatuous at best.”

Lower-income Americans live closer to supermarkets than higher-income Americans.

“Overall, median distance to the nearest supermarket is 0.85 miles,” said the Agriculture Department report. “Median distance for low-income individuals is about 0.1 of a mile less than for those with higher income, and a greater share of low-income individuals (61.8 percent) have high or medium access to supermarkets than those with higher income (56.1 percent).”


There are 23.5 million people who live in “low income” areas that are more than a mile from the nearest supermarket. But more than half of these people are not low-income, and almost everyone in these areas–93.3 percent—drive their cars to the supermarket. On average, they spend 4.5 minutes more than the typical American traveling to the supermarket.

“Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of federal poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store,” said the report. “However, not all of these 23.5 million people have low income.

“If estimates are restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store,” it says. “Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the national average (15 minutes).

“However,” says the report, “93 percent of those who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household member drove.”

Only 0.1 percent—one-tenth of one percent—of Americans living in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket took public transit to the store, the report said.


It’s for this “one-tenth of one percent” of American living in low-income areas that First Lady Michelle Obama says U.S. taxpayers need to invest $400 million every year. Is it worth it? You be the judge

Maybe if they walked the "Extra Mile" to the Supermarket there wouldn't be an Obesity problem.......

“We’re creating a Healthy Food Financing Initiative that’s going to invest $400 million a year—and leverage hundreds of millions more from the private sector—to bring grocery stores to under-served areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier options,” she announced.



So now they want to start controlling our food supply as to where
food markets should be and what foods they will need to carry?

Why shouldn't we just pay super markets to deliver food to their house.
After all it does take them an extra 4.5 Min's to get their food.

Funnie though, in Calif., some how, soom seem to find the time to get to Vegas and cash in their monthly welfare cards.

I like TDF's idea. :)
And don't forget to wear your mittens.

Funnie though, in Calif. some how seem to find the time to get to Vegas and cash in their monthly welfare cards.



I believe it was Las Vegas and International cruise ships where the welfare debit cards were being used :confused: Nancy Pelosi would tell you that's economic stimulus...

Grow a garden, I know it would require someone to actually do something but it'cheap to do and health food for you. :huh:

We need to fight Obesity.....so lets make it easier for people to get food. Trying to grasp the logic in that

Think again Dems.....................I guess we can toss out the theory to add extra tax to junk food's:


(CNN) – Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts. For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most — not the nutritional value of the food. The premise held up: On his “convenience store diet,” he shed 27 pounds in two months. … His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds. But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so. Haub’s “bad” cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his “good” cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

How's his glucose levels.....N/A

This is nonsense.

"Haub said before the diet, he was eating up to 3,000 calories a day and weighed 201 pounds."

And then "he has lost 27 pounds in two months eating approximately 1,800 calories a day – and those calories came from foods like snack cakes, candy bars and even potato chips – basically anything he could get from a vending machine."

Anyone who removes 1200 calories from their diet is going to lose weight. This does not mean it is healthy.
This quote sums it up well:
“This diet is based on refined, processed foods that lack essential vitamins and nutrients, as well as antioxidants and fiber,” she said. “Antioxidants fight cancer, and fiber lowers cholesterol and controls sugar levels, reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Good health is not just about getting skinny; it also is about increasing chances for longevity. This junk food diet may help you shed a few pounds, but ultimately can reduce your chances for longevity.”

How's his glucose levels.....N/A

Yea, funny they didn't mention anything about that............

No that guy really lost the weight. He conditioned himself to eat one piece every 3 hours whether he was hungry or not. So every 3 hours you eat a pack of twinkies. Yea you'd drop weight quick but I'm betting your body is in poor shape.

Food deserts??? This is just an extension of welfare. 400 mill? Who gets that? Are we going to give tax breaks to stores to build in unprofitable areas? Just when you think it can't get any crazier. The good thing is the new House will never fund it. Thank you Tea Party

they might sneak it in under the wire....like this


FLOTUS’ $4.5 Billion School Lunch Bill Could Get Lame Duck Passage

November 10, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — First lady Michelle Obama’s campaign for healthier school lunches could be revived in Congress after two key Democrats said they will drop opposition to using funding from food stamps to pay for it.

Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts have said they will support House passage of a $4.5 billion child nutrition bill that passed the Senate earlier this year. Backed by some anti-hunger groups, the two lawmakers led opposition to passage of that version before the election because it is partially paid for with $2.2 billion taken from future funding for food stamp programs.

Thank you Tea Party

If it wasn't for the Tea Party, there'd be at least one or two more Republicans in Congress. Nice concept, poor political strategy.

If it wasn't for the Tea Party, there'd be at least one or two more Republicans in Congress. Nice concept, poor political strategy.

that's the dumbest thing you've said in a long time :uhuh:

that's the dumbest thing you've said in a long time :uhuh:

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

it was a tough call, one of the dumbest :uhuh:

if it wasn't for the Tea Party, their organization, dedication and energy the historic proportions of the turn over at every level( YOU NEED TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE STATE LEVEL TURN OVER) may not have happened....starting with Scott Brown, to suggest that losses by Tea Party "backed" candidates are the fault or result of some shortcoming in the Tea Party is just rediculous...more likely a shortcoming of the Republican party establishment for not fully supporting the primary winner and reluctant, entrenched elitists that don't know when it's time to go...see Murkowski, those that lost were left out on their own in many cases and heavily targeted by the dems...how many trips did Barry and Biden make to Deleware despite the polls? and look at the apparatus that was deployed to Nevada to save Harry's ass...the Tea Party was a huge net plus in an historic sweep...

We need to fight Obesity.....so lets make it easier for people to get food. Trying to grasp the logic in that



Yup, all about calories, never saw a fat guy comin out of a cocentration camp.

"Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove

they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens".



- Ben Stein -

PERFECT

Judge uses Obama's words against him - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/)

Another step in the right direction, wished it was the final Supreme Court decision.

I like what the Judge hypothesized, that under Obama's legal theory
the government could mandate eating broccoli.

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun)

Funny thing:

I was talking to a Canadian who lives and works in the US now.

He was treated for and survived childhood cancer. Spent a lot of time dealing with his own personal healthcare. He had zero issues with the health care system in his experience... he can't figure out what the big fuss is here over 'Obama Care'....

it was an interesting perspective....

Funny thing:

I was talking to a Canadian who lives and works in the US now.

He was treated for and survived childhood cancer. Spent a lot of time dealing with his own personal healthcare. He had zero issues with the health care system in his experience... he can't figure out what the big fuss is here over 'Obama Care'....

it was an interesting perspective....

That might have been years ago, I have a very good friend who was born in Canada and went to College in Boston. He ended up settling down here in the states and had a pretty good semi pro hockey career. His Mom and Dad lived in Ontario and his Mom was diagnosed with Breast Cancer about 4 years ago. His Mom and Dad had enough of the system and would come to the states so that she could be treated. His Dad finally put a request in with work to relocate to the States and they now live here. 2 very different stories and I'm sure there are many more that tell different sides. He will say to this day that if his Mom stayed, her chances wouldn't have been as good.

Last I knew MA has a health care similar to Ontario or at least Obamacare courtesy of former Governor Romney. Also Boston medical system is second to none in the world so a comparison to Ontario is weak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last I knew MA has a health care similar to Ontario or at least Obamacare courtesy of former Governor Romney. Also Boston medical system is second to none in the world so a comparison to Ontario is weak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Weak? Ask someone you know from Canada about the wait times to see a specialist...........I know many Canadians and most have similar complaints about very long wait times. We are starting to see that in MA now and it will only get worse.

MA Health is way more open to cover people than Ontario's. They have residency requirements (have to be a citizen and resident of the province for 6 months) we don't.........

They came here for both the quality of Boston's Medical care and more importantly, the quickness of care that they didn't have in Canada.

There are doctors graduating from US colleges, US universities and the US medical schools by the thousands each year.
I doubt there will be any significant wait times. The reason for the increase in wait times is that not all good doctors want to be part of commonwealth care but that could change the competition among doctors increase.
There are more hockey players then doctors in Canada that is the reason for long waits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are doctors graduating from US colleges, US universities and the US medical schools by the thousands each year.
I doubt there will be any significant wait times. The reason for the increase in wait times is that not all good doctors want to be part of commonwealth care but that could change the competition among doctors increase.
There are more hockey players then doctors in Canada that is the reason for long waits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are facing a severe Primary Care Physician shortage (40,000 to 150,000 shortage within the next 10-15 years). Do a little research on it and I think you will find it to be well recognized across the board as an issue. More people to cover and less doctors result in longer wait times.

As for more Hockey players in Canada than Physicians, that to use your term is a "weak" statment………………….from a profession standpoint, there are more Doctors in Canada than professional hockey players

I don't know whether you don't comprehend what I wrote or it is me, probably me.
What I stated previously is that there is no comparison between Boston and Ontario medical care that is to say "weak" comparison.
If you add in the w- hores there are less doctors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last I knew MA has a health care similar to Ontario or at least Obamacare courtesy of former Governor Romney. Also Boston medical system is second to none in the world so a comparison to Ontario is weak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's completely wrong. MA has a health care plan for those who cannot afford health insurance. Most people still have traditional insurance like BCBS or Tufts, etc... either through their employer or on their own. The medical system in MA is very good because they treat people who have private insurance, not because of the people on Masshealth. If everyone in the state was on Masshealth, you would find even longer emergency room waits and fewer medical professionals working in the state.

Ontario has public health. It is mostly paid for through income taxes or other fixed monthly premiums for people who can afford it. There is no BCBS or Tufts as we know it in Canada. Because the services are amost completely free to the patient, the rates paid to medical professionals are lower than in the US. That's why there are fewer medical professionals working in Canada and why there are long waits in ER's and for procedures.

Comparing MA to Canada for health care is like apples and bananas.

We are facing a severe Primary Care Physician shortage (40,000 to 150,000 shortage within the next 10-15 years). Do a little research on it and I think you will find it to be well recognized across the board as an issue. More people to cover and less doctors result in longer wait times.
I don't think the shortage of PCPs is going to be *that* big of an issue. With Nurse Practitioners and an increased utilization of the better-trained Physician Assistants, the vacuum is being filled. Universal Health Care, Medicare and Medicaid are all forcing M.D.'s more into a specialist role.

A single M.D. in a Primary Care office can easily oversee 3-5 NPs or PAs and be able to handle far more patients with practically no decrease in quality of care. The privately owned PCP offices saw this a long time ago. They are doing exactly the above, employing 2-3 NPs or PAs, consulting with them on care and taking any special cases on direct. NPs and PAs can do the more redundant and time-consuming physicals, while the M.D. can see more complex cases.

The nice thing about NPs and PAs is that their salary (ie. "cost") is 20-40% less than an M.D. This is the kind of stuff that should have been addressed in "heath care reform" - lower cost options that don't significantly sacrifice care.

That's why there are fewer medical professionals working in Canada and why there are long waits in ER's and for procedures.
Last I checked, the number of doctors per 1000ppl in Canada is not that far off from the US. On that thought... just looked it up again:
"In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[82] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[83]"

The data is definitely somewhat dated, but shows that Canadian doctors aren't running to the US thus causing a large void of providers.

I don't know whether you don't comprehend what I wrote or it is me, probably me.
What I stated previously is that there is no comparison between Boston and Ontario medical care that is to say "weak" comparison.
If you add in the w- hores there are less doctors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree that Boston medical care is one of the best in the world and agree that it is better than that of Ontario's. We have some of the top Schools right here and they do so much research and have a good supply of top doctors graduating each year. My point was that my friends Mom came to the states for medical care mainly to avoid the long wait times she would have had in Canada. You also said we would not have significant wait time for doctors and I disagree based on current trends and the projections that it will get worse.

Not sure what w-hores means but in 2009 there was approximately 70,000 doctors in Canada, with 22 guys per team, that would equal approximately 3,200 hockey teams (Pro, semi pro, etc) in Canada which is not the case.

Last I checked, the number of doctors per 1000ppl in Canada is not that far off from the US. On that thought... just looked it up again:
"In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[82] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[83]"

The data is definitely somewhat dated, but shows that Canadian doctors aren't running to the US thus causing a large void of providers.

I know there are different sources for this data and they are probably all over the place, not sure if that came from wiki or not but the statistics numbers I found for 2009 were:
Canada Physicians per 1,000 = 1.61
US Physicians per 1,000 = 2.61

Physicians (per 1,000 people) - Health Nutrition and Population Statistics, Country Comparison, Nations Statistics (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/WorldStats/HNP-physicians.html)

Canada physicians per capita - Wolfram|Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Canada+physicians+per+capita&lk=1&a=ClashPrefs_*Country.Canada.HealthIndicatorProper ty.Physicians.PopulationRatio-)

Not sure what is valid.......

Do any of you even know what Mahealth is? Do any of you have an idea of what it covers?

TOO BIG TO STOP? What a load of HORSE #^&#^&#^&#^&

Too big to stop? Obama's overhaul lumbers on - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul)

Do any of you even know what Mahealth is? Do any of you have an idea of what it covers?

Covers pretty much everything, sounds better than my employers healthcare that I pay a lot for. :smash: This is a short list of what it covers.

inpatient and outpatient hospital services
doctor, nurse practitioner, nurse midwife, and clinic visits
pharmacy services
mental health and substance abuse services
audiologist services and hearing aids
vision care including eyeglasses and magnifying aids
chiropractor services
podiatrist services and orthotics
prosthetic services
abortion and family planning services
rehabilitation and therapy services (physical, occupational, speech/language)
speech and hearing services
renal dialysis
smoking cessation services
x-rays and laboratory work
durable medical equipment and supplies
oxygen and respiratory equipment
dental services including checkups, cleanings, fillings, dentures, and other approved services
ambulance and wheelchair van service

Eligibility:
To be eligible for MassHealth, you must live in Massachusetts, have low to medium income, and meet certain general eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements differ depending on your age, family situation, work history, immigration status, and health care needs.

a family living with children under the age of 19 years
a pregnant woman with or without children
a Dept. of Mental Health client who has been out of work for a long time
a disabled person
an adult who is working for a qualified employer
a person who is HIV positive
a child under the age of 19 years
an adult caretaker relative living with children under 19 years of age when neither parent is living in the home
elderly (65 or older)
a woman with breast or cervical cancer
a person in need of long-term care
a young adult under age 21 who was in the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF/DSS) on his/her 18th birthday

Ok so that's what you THINK it does. Now ask people who are ON IT for what it's REALLY like. It ain't pretty.

Do you realize that you have to go to Boston ONLY for doctors visits?

For the record I missed qualifying for it by $600 LOUSY #^&#^&#^&#^&ING DOLLARS LAST YEAR. :smash:

At $1k a month right now for a catastrophic policy that gives me diddle#^&#^&#^&#^&....next year we won't have insurance. It will now be more than my mortgage.

And Ma health isn't any cheaper! They consider $1k a month "AFFORDABLE"

Bullsh it.

Ok so that's what you THINK it does. Now ask people who are ON IT for what it's REALLY like. It ain't pretty.

Do you realize that you have to go to Boston ONLY for doctors visits?

For the record I missed qualifying for it by $600 LOUSY #^&#^&#^&#^&ING DOLLARS LAST YEAR. :smash:

I pulled it from the Mass Resources site . I don't know if the above is 100% accurate or not but it's what was listed.

MassHealth: General Eligibility (http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=35&pageID=13&subpages=yes&SecondLeveldynamicID=564&DynamicID=559)

http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=35&pageID=13&subpages=yes&SecondLeveldynamicID=678&DynamicID=563

I actually do know someone currently on Mass Health and their Doctor is NOT in Boston. You have to call Mass Health and THEY find you a doctor in your area but they have doctors all over the state that take it.

As for the $600, It can be argued that Mass Health could "de-motivate" people on the cusp to work/earn less so that they qualify. This is not directed at you so I don't want you to think I'm saying that about you but there is an argument that people within a certain $$ range might toss in the towel so they do not earn more than the required threshold in order to gain coverage. That in my eyes is a demotivator.

At $1k a month right now for a catastrophic policy that gives me diddle#^&#^&#^&#^&....next year we won't have insurance. It will now be more than my mortgage.

And Ma health isn't any cheaper! They consider $1k a month "AFFORDABLE"

Bullsh it.

I hope you find a way to get insured. What is the penelty by the state for not being insured?

ALOT less than what health ins would cost for sure.

Do you realize that you have to go to Boston ONLY for doctors visits?
I don't believe this for a second.

If you don't believe it go on their site. Try to sign up and look for doctors. There isn't ANY outside of Boston.

NONE

If you don't believe it go on their site. Try to sign up and look for doctors. There isn't ANY outside of Boston.

NONE


They have them all over the state, you have to call Mass Health and THEY find you a doctor in your area but they have doctors all over the state that take it.

If you don't believe it go on their site. Try to sign up and look for doctors. There isn't ANY outside of Boston.

NONE

Yes there are. Call your PCP and ask if they accept it. The website may not list all the doctors, but there are plenty in the suburbs and out in Western MA that accept it. My deadbeat sister on the South Shore has been on it for years and the only time she went into Boston was for a surgery.

OK. i'M WRONG THEN. gOING by what was on the site.

stupid caps lock

If you don't believe it go on their site. Try to sign up and look for doctors. There isn't ANY outside of Boston.

NONE
I know that the medical network my doctor is in accepts MAHealth - they are in Foxboro.
My Dentist accepts MAHealth - he's in Plainville.
I believe my eye doctor accepts it too.

ALOT less than what health ins would cost for sure.

maybe you can get a waiver...everyone else is :rotf2:

February 03, 2011
773 Obamacare waivers...and counting
Ethel C. Fenig
In August, 2009, as he was extolling the virtues of his proposed Obamacare, President Barack Obama (D) famously promised "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." And if you're a union member you certainly can; if you're not, well...

The Health and Human Services site Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency (sic) conveniently lists the 773 waivers approved to date. Scroll through the list; notice that most of the waivers, more than 650 went to unions exempting well over 2 million employees.

Whoops, looks like the CBO underestimated the cost of Obama Care
by $500 Billion. What else is new. :huh: :(

In addition the NYT reported that most Pharma is cutting Research and Development because of the govt pushing generics, which do zero R+D, and
the many govt. regulations.
Pfizer is cutting 30% of it's R+D as a generic Lipitor will be available in November.

There goes the future miracle drugs that so many younger people were
looking forward to extending their quality of older life and the best medical
care in the world.

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;796543] If you have private insurance being offered by your employer it may be coming to an end with the higher premiums the employer or you may have to pay.

QUOTE]

Yup, I heard on the news that according to a recent Mcleary Poll 30% of companies polled will drop healthcare coverage in 2012.
Of course the CBO said that # is high, but we all know how accurate the CBO is.

Looks like the statement, " If you want to keep your current insurance you can" is being phased out. :(

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_WAIVERS_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-17-16-45-59)

RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs "Almost Immediately" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almos t_immediately.html)

Healthcare at it's finest

Man attempts surgery on his hernia with butter knife, police say - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/man-used-butter-knife-in-attempt-to-do-his-hernia-surgery-police-say.html)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Healthcare at it's finest

Man attempts surgery on his hernia with butter knife, police say - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/man-used-butter-knife-in-attempt-to-do-his-hernia-surgery-police-say.html)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

63 and put on a psychiatric hold.
what exactly does that have to do with healthcare?

If you don't believe it go on their site. Try to sign up and look for doctors. There isn't ANY outside of Boston.

NONE

your location, 30 mile radius, found 10.

lurn2internets. :rotf2:

Cuz I'd be willing to bet the guy couldnt afford to get it fixed......not all have cushy jobs with health insurance

HI TED :wave:

63 and put on a psychiatric hold.
what exactly does that have to do with healthcare?

Oh trust me it took the better part of 5 hours to locate a pcp online that accepted Ma Health Comm Care.

What a website says and what a doctor actually ACCEPTS for insurance is night and day. I don't know why half those people are listed.



your location, 30 mile radius, found 10.

lurn2internets. :rotf2:

Cuz I'd be willing to bet the guy couldnt afford to get it fixed......not all have cushy jobs with health insurance

HI TED :wave:

63 qualifies for medicare.

oops.

England just closed another 2 hospitals.
Nothing like govt HC,things are going just splendidly.

Patients to wait longer for care under new health law, think tank says | The Tennessean | tennessean.com (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110923/BUSINESS05/309230081/Patients-wait-longer-care-under-new-health-law-think-tank-says)

THEY MODELED THIS AFTER MASS. SAME BULLSHAT that happened in Mass. They added 300,000 newly insured to the rolls in Ma in the first year. Why didn't it result in a drop in rates...

"BlueCross: Health law will add nearly 700,000 to TN insurance rolls"

So ONE state adds more than double what we did and they're still saying higher rates. GTFOOH. A larger pool should cause lower rates for all...

"A year or two after the state exchanges are up and running, he sees smaller employers with fewer than 50 workers ending their insurance coverage, and letting employees seek policies on the exchanges instead."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!! Govt administered health care.

"The reform law narrows the advantage that younger people had over older people when it comes to costs of insurance policies, for instance, Coulter said. As a result, healthy young adults will pay more unless they’re poor and eligible for government help, he said."

GREAT so the people who don't use it as much will be penalized so that Joe Fat Cat banker can pay less....niiiiiiiiice.

Reform my azz this is nothing but a HUGE bone to all these health care companies :smash: Stinks of cronyism and palm greasing to me once again. I said the same thing when Mass pulled this on us 4-5 years ago. :yak5:

they're just figuring this out now???

Obama health-care law modeled on Romney plan - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44854320/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.TpTOPnK3aSp)

THE ROMNEY PLAN IS FLAWED. IT is his attempt at giving his cronies a serious chunk of change they never had before. Obamamotorscare was touted as derived from the mass. romney law.

A law which cost and continues to cost Mass residents hundreds of dollars a month and more.