![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by baseball55 on November 6, 2016, at 20:01:51
In reply to Re: VOTE. » Phillipa, posted by Phillipa on November 6, 2016, at 17:27:58
Let's drop this thread. I imagine babble is as polarized as the rest of the country.
Posted by jonhed on November 7, 2016, at 6:56:46
In reply to Re: VOTE., posted by baseball55 on November 6, 2016, at 20:01:51
Yeah, please drop this thread.
I image it will just start unnecessary discussion..
I feel rage just from writing this.
Lets just focus on the things we are best at:
Helping people and nerding about chemicals 😊Love/J
Posted by jane d on November 7, 2016, at 7:21:15
In reply to Re: VOTE. » SLS, posted by Phillipa on November 6, 2016, at 8:58:11
> I already have by write in absentee ballot last week. NC allows both early in person voting and write in. Who is for health care in our best interests? Can't be the one who supports Obama Care? Phillipa
I've had insurance for the last couple of years thanks only to obamacare. For many many years before that I had no coverage at all.I learned to manage my mental health care adequately with cheap generic prozac (I'm lucky that works for me) but lived in terror of something more serious. Something like heart problems or a cancer diagnosis. Or even just a broken bone or diagnostic tests.
So far I still haven't needed anything more than my cheap generics since I've been covered under obamacare. With any luck I'll make it all the way to Medicare and beyond without ever needing much expensive care. But if I don't, someone else in my shoes will. And it has given me great peace of mind to know that in an emergency it's there for whichever of us isn't lucky.
Is obamacare perfect? No. But many of it's problems could have been fixed if there weren't people determined to make it fail so it could be an election tool this year.
I'm sorry for those who are offended by reading this here. I think it's too important to keep quiet about.
Posted by SLS on November 7, 2016, at 8:16:21
In reply to VOTE., posted by SLS on November 6, 2016, at 1:29:52
I guess I should have known that I would set off a political fire storm. I didn't mean to. I was trying to encourage people to vote, regardless of which candidates they favor. Voting is empowerment. People with mental illness must advocate for themselves.
VOTE!
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 8:53:06
In reply to Re: VOTE., posted by jane d on November 7, 2016, at 7:21:15
Guess sometimes it pays to be old as have medicaire, and a supplemental insurance from USAA since husband's Dad was military in high ranking job. Scary thing is that all the studies now on my RN news letter are coming from Europe not the USA so count on socialized medicine. If you are okay with this fine. Husband still buys his privately BC/BS and his premiums are high but had to stents for two separate kidney stones last year. Me I now avoid doctors as they are not being paid and a lot no longer take medicaire. And three of the five insurance carriers opted out of Obamacare in NC for next year so people are in heaps of trouble. Down the next neighborhood here is a less expensive neighborhood and most can no longer afford obama care as their premiums doubled when they got sick. I would rather take a chance since have kids and Grandkids on the T man. Phillipa
Posted by jonhed on November 7, 2016, at 11:17:06
In reply to VOTE?, posted by SLS on November 7, 2016, at 8:16:21
I agree, it is very important to vote!
I live in Sweden and here we are a little scared of what is going to happen after the election.
It is a lot of countries that are affected by your politics!
Posted by jane d on November 7, 2016, at 12:22:31
In reply to Re: VOTE. » jane d, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 8:53:06
I changed the subject line to make it easier to skip for those who want to.
> Guess sometimes it pays to be old as have medicaire,
...Well the medicare part of the package still sounds awfully good to me but I'm still ten years away from it. I'm not so sure of the rest of the deal. I'm beginning to feel old and achy. I'd swear I was young when I first came to babble. Don't know how that happened :-)
>Scary thing is that all the studies now on my RN news letter are coming from Europe not the USA so count on socialized medicine.
I'm not sure why this is scary. There's still lots of research being done here. However some kinds of studies are probably easier to do in a place where everyone has medical care. It eliminates some variables.
>Me I now avoid doctors as they are not being paid and a lot no longer take medicaire. And three of the five insurance carriers opted out of Obamacare in NC for next year so people are in heaps of trouble.
I avoid doctors too. I always have whether I had employer insurance, no insurance, or obamacare. But sometimes they are necessary.
I've also always been very picky about those doctors when I did see them. I hate that it's harder to do that now. But, there are times when any doctor, even in a limited network, is better than none. And that is the choice for me and those like me. Not between obamacare and perfect healthcare.I think that if you ever really need them, and I hope you don't, you'll find that there are plenty of doctors that do still take medicare even if some of your favorites do not.
>Down the next neighborhood here is a less expensive neighborhood and most can no longer afford obama care as their premiums doubled when they got sick.Their premiums may have doubled but it wasn't because they got sick. That ended with obamacare. It was very common before if they didn't just cancel your insurance outright. And if they are actually paying the full amount of those premiums without a subsidy it can't be that inexpensive a neighborhood.
What can and does happen is that premiums go up if everyone who is on the insurance gets sick. Or in other words if mostly sick people sign up for insurance. And that's sort of what happened. Many people who weren't sick and figured they weren't likely to get sick chose to not buy any insurance. Of course they know they can change their mind if they do get sick after all. The penalties for trying to cheat the system that way are just too low to stop people. That's one of the adjustments that could be made if we were trying to make the system work instead of trying to make it fail.
As an aside I really hate the people who complain that they are getting cheated unless they personally get back more from the insurance company then they put in in premiums. (I know nobody here has said that) It's insurance not a buyers club. Anytime you don't need it is a good year. Just like it's a good year when your house doesn't burn down.
Jane
Who hopes she still has insurance come January 21st, that our congress gets going on fixing the parts that don't work, and mostly that she never never needs it after all.
Posted by Tabitha on November 7, 2016, at 13:59:53
In reply to Re: VOTE., posted by jane d on November 7, 2016, at 7:21:15
> I've had insurance for the last couple of years thanks only to obamacare.I am glad you have finally been able to obtain insurance, and that you have not yet had a major need to use it.
It was a big weight off my mind when a friend who couldn't afford pre-ACA private insurance premiums was finally able to obtain subsidized insurance on the ACA exchange for $1/month.
I have other friends who were denied private insurance due to merely having taken an anti-depressant for a short period in the past. Since the 2014 ACA mandate that stopped insurers from denying coverage due to "pre-existing condition", people in that boat (including myself) are assured of being able to buy insurance either on the exchanges or direct from private carriers.
I am counting on ACA to get coverage for the years in between my spouse's retirement and my elegibility for Medicare. Without ACA, one of us would have to maintain employer coverage.
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 17:29:01
In reply to Obamacare and medicare » Phillipa, posted by jane d on November 7, 2016, at 12:22:31
Jane I have the best specialists in the area so my post I guess wasn't clear and know it wasn't. I see the very best spinal surgeons group in the whole of NC. Offices all over the state. And recently when fell off my bike I went to the premium knee surgeon in whole area too. All of the specialists accept medicare. It's the internists that are extremely difficult to find or GP's . So I rely on my endocrinologist at yearly thyroid check as he spends an hour with me and gives a full exam. And usually if need an antibiotic which is rarely I go to the Urgent Care for the Hospital that is best CMC.
Now my husband when he had the two operations for the kidney stones, is younger than I am and he still buys his private insurance. Rates are high but didn't increase for him for the year after his surgeries. Had stents both times & the basket urethoscopic lithotripsy done.
But I think his Brother was fired from his job and lost his insurance when he had prostrate cancer. So maybe the degree of the illness determines this. Since they are not allowed to fire someone for illness, they spent almost a year finding things to write him up for. That is how they avoided repercussions. Same with the other neighborhood one had breast cancer & is now without insurance. Since her husband is self employed maybe they do their own taxes and don't know how to do deductibles correctly? I do know a lot of them just go to the hospitals and discard the bills as they own nothing and some don't work. So this makes them medicaid doesn't it not sure? Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 17:52:42
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare can get specialists » jane d, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 17:29:01
Not sure if this link will work or not but this just arrived in my subscriptions to newsletters. Hoping it works. ACA is what is spoken or with others in title. Interesting Phillipa
Posted by baseball55 on November 7, 2016, at 18:14:28
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 17:52:42
Under ACA, you can't be turned away or see your premiums go up because of a preexisting condition. So I don't know what you are referring to, Phillipa. Virtually all docs in the US take Medicare. It is hard to find GPs, not because of Medicare but because of a shortage of GPs, especially now that something like 27m previously uninsured now have insurance and are looking for GPs.
GPs, like pediatricians and (yes) psychiatrists get very low reimbursements from insurance companies, so new docs tend to go into higher paid specialties like orthopedic surgery.
What the ACA needs is a public option. This will never happen as long as opponents of ACA are in control of the legislature.
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 18:31:04
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by baseball55 on November 7, 2016, at 18:14:28
So you are correct about needing more doctors but with malpractice insurance rates for the docs rising they are leaving the field of medicine in droves. Less docs more patients doesn't work. The NP's & PA's are attempting to fill this need as can prescribe some but not all meds. But most need supervision of MD. Country in trouble. Phillipa
Posted by Christ_empowered on November 7, 2016, at 18:59:48
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more » baseball55, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 18:31:04
docs in other countries don't make as much as docs here in the US. Many of our docs now come from overseas and/or get training overseas.
I think a public option would fix a lot of this hot mess. Plus, we're more than a little bit behind the rest of the 21st century, affluent, developed world in having universal health care. I have a friend...he's from the Netherlands. They have universal health care. They have private insurance options, too. His mother's insurance covers her botox. I guess the private coverage is for higher end stuff? I dunno...
ObamaCare is a mess, but the system before was worse for a lot of people (most people?). A public option is the best idea, but with health care largely a for profit enterprise in the US (especially mental health), how's that going to happen? Money talk$
Posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 19:54:09
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by Christ_empowered on November 7, 2016, at 18:59:48
It's a mess all over the world from what overseas friends write me. Evidently Sweden is #1 but their tax rate is extremely high. Disability insurance I would guess for a lot with mental illness and don't like this term as it's an illness like any other one like appendicitis, Mental health is no longer a separate entity. Phillipa
Posted by jane d on November 8, 2016, at 6:36:56
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 17:52:42
> Not sure if this link will work or not but this just arrived in my subscriptions to newsletters. Hoping it works. ACA is what is spoken or with others in title. Interesting Phillipa
>
>
> http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-community/health-care-policy/article/americas-not-so-great-health-care-system?&ic=610Hi Phillipa,
Interesting article. I read it a little differently than you did. It seems to me to be only indirectly about the ACA. The problems it talks about mostly predate the ACA or are outside of it. The comparison of costs in 2013 in the US vs the rest of the world are from before the act was fully in effect. And the outrage of medicare not being allowed to negotiate drug prices has nothing to do with the act at all.
One thing I hadn't realized is that we still had policies out there that were not required to comply with the ACA. I need to look up just which parts they are allowed to ignore.
In another post you mentioned knowing people who had lost jobs due to illness. Unfortunately that does happen. Someday I'd like to see medical coverage totally separated from employment. As long as employers are footing the bill they are motivated to get rid of anyone they think may cost them more either because they got sick or just because they are older and some kid in human resources thinks they will get sick soon.
I'm glad you can get doctors if you want them under medicare. I think medicare is one thing we've done right as a country.
Posted by jane d on November 8, 2016, at 6:46:40
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by Christ_empowered on November 7, 2016, at 18:59:48
> docs in other countries don't make as much as docs here in the US. Many of our docs now come from overseas and/or get training overseas.
>
> I think a public option would fix a lot of this hot mess. Plus, we're more than a little bit behind the rest of the 21st century, affluent, developed world in having universal health care. I have a friend...he's from the Netherlands. They have universal health care. They have private insurance options, too. His mother's insurance covers her botox. I guess the private coverage is for higher end stuff? I dunno...
>
> ObamaCare is a mess, but the system before was worse for a lot of people (most people?). A public option is the best idea, but with health care largely a for profit enterprise in the US (especially mental health), how's that going to happen? Money talk$Hi CE,
I was a fan of the public option too. I wonder if there is any way to get there from now. Or if we should.
It may be time to start talking about what kind of fixes we need and which of those we can really get instead of just fighting to keep the ACA from being totally destroyed.
Jane
Posted by jane d on November 8, 2016, at 6:58:50
In reply to Re: ACA » jane d, posted by Tabitha on November 7, 2016, at 13:59:53
I'm not trying to ignore you Tabitha or Baseball. I just had nothing to add to or dispute in either of your posts.
And to Scott and everyone else who would rather it stayed totally non political. I understand but I think that polite discussion of why the issues at stake are important to us is part of what the entire process is about. And in some ways you all are as much my community as the people who live next door. I certainly share a hugely important part of my life with you (even if I wish we'd all been spared that).
Posted by Phillipa on November 8, 2016, at 8:48:49
In reply to Re: ACA, posted by jane d on November 8, 2016, at 6:58:50
Jane there you have it. It is really our ability to negotiate the medication prices with the drug companies. Yes a lot to fix out there and agree that employment and medical care should remain separate. And so far medicaire is what keeps me from ending up with bills that I couldn't even imagine paying. Nice to have a civil conversation too. Phillipa
Posted by baseball55 on November 8, 2016, at 19:26:13
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more » Christ_empowered, posted by Phillipa on November 7, 2016, at 19:54:09
> It's a mess all over the world from what overseas friends write me. Evidently Sweden is #1 but their tax rate is extremely high. Disability insurance I would guess for a lot with mental illness and don't like this term as it's an illness like any other one like appendicitis, Mental health is no longer a separate entity. Phillipa
The World Health Organization ranks France #1, but Sweden is close behind. The US ranks #37 in access and outcomes.
Yes, taxes are higher in Europe, but consider this. You pay more taxes but you don't have to pay for:
health insurance or health care
college education
child care in the first 6-12 months after birth
In addition, you get fully paid parental leave for 6-12 months after a birth
Unemployment benefits that replace 80% of wages for 1-2 years (in the US , unemployment replaces 40% on average, lasts for 6 months and, because of onerous eligibility criteria, only 1/2 of the unemployed receive benefits)
Public pensions that replace 75% of wages (SS only about 40% on average).
I could go on. But higher taxes mean lower out-of-pocket spending for a variety of things.
Posted by Lamdage22 on November 9, 2016, at 13:12:19
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by baseball55 on November 8, 2016, at 19:26:13
you do pay for healthcare according to your income
Posted by linkadge on November 9, 2016, at 19:45:38
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by Lamdage22 on November 9, 2016, at 13:12:19
The "Canadian System" is a joke. I have several cavities which I don't fill as I would be paying 100% out of pocket. Also, I pay 100% for my medication (much of which I don't fill as I have to pay for it).
Obamacare simply takes health care dollars from one group, extracts its "overhead costs" and redistributes a small portion to the less fortunate. Sure, some are healthier, but the system is much sicker overall.
Nothing is free.
Linkadge
Posted by Lamdage22 on November 10, 2016, at 3:06:20
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by linkadge on November 9, 2016, at 19:45:38
there is so much more support for the mentally ill in germany which is one of the reasons why i am staying.
Posted by baseball55 on November 10, 2016, at 18:37:25
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by linkadge on November 9, 2016, at 19:45:38
> The "Canadian System" is a joke. I have several cavities which I don't fill as I would be paying 100% out of pocket. Also, I pay 100% for my medication (much of which I don't fill as I have to pay for it).
Canada is a disappointment. They have great emergency care but long waits for elective and non-urgent procedures. No dental. No free drugs, though the prices are negotiated and are much lower than in the US. Canada doesn't fund their system as well as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, others.
>
> Obamacare simply takes health care dollars from one group, extracts its "overhead costs" and redistributes a small portion to the less fortunate. Sure, some are healthier, but the system is much sicker overall.
>
I don't know what this means. That everyone pays in but sick people generate most of the costs? Isn't that true in any system? That's the nature of health insurance, whether public or private. Or do you mean something else?
Also, as far as redistributing a "small portion", the ACA did limit how much insurance companies could use on overhead and profits. I think it's 15%, which is still too much. A public option could outperform private insurance due to low overhead, which is why the insurance companies opposed it when the act was being negotiated.
> Nothing is free.
>> Linkadge
>
>
>
>
Posted by linkadge on November 11, 2016, at 19:44:05
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by baseball55 on November 10, 2016, at 18:37:25
Canadian drugs aren't always cheaper than US drugs. Last time I was on generic Prozac (2010) it was over $50 for one month at Walmart Canada, yet under $10 at Walmart US.
>I don't know what this means. That everyone pays >in but sick people generate most of the costs? >Isn't that true in any system?
What I mean is that (in many ways) you need to make the middle class sicker, in order to make the lower class less sick. The rising deductibles under Obamacare means that many in the middle class forgoe medicines and treatments which were once possible for them. I don't believe this is ethical (although, on the surface it pretends to be), especially since only a portion of that which is taken, is redistributed.
>That's the nature of health insurance, whether >public or private. Or do you mean something else?
>Also, as far as redistributing a "small >portion", the ACA did limit how much insurance >companies could use on overhead and profits.Let me use an analogy:
Democrats would think it is fair to take one year of life from 50 individuals, in order to add 42.5 years of life to an individual who would die younger (I.e. 50 years - 15% = 42.5 years 'redistributed'). In reality, however, the *total* cost of the 'redistribution' is likely much higher than 15%.
Obamacare does not add to the 'net health' of the system. When something is 'free' and delivered without individual accountability, it becomes abused and it hence inherently wasteful.
Linakdge
Posted by baseball55 on November 12, 2016, at 19:23:47
In reply to Re: Obamacare and medicare Vs private + more, posted by linkadge on November 11, 2016, at 19:44:05
> What I mean is that (in many ways) you need to make the middle class sicker, in order to make the lower class less sick. The rising deductibles under Obamacare means that many in the middle class forgoe medicines and treatments which were once possible for them. I don't believe this is ethical (although, on the surface it pretends to be), especially since only a portion of that which is taken, is redistributed.
What you don't understand about the US health care system is that all of the people buying insurance on the exchanges didn't have ANY insurance before. So they are not forgoing treatments "once possible for them." Also, the ACA subsidizes, pretty heavily, premiums for people with incomes up to 4x the US poverty line - about $90,000 for a family of 4. You seem to think the ACA is only for those with low incomes, but that is not true at all. And what do you mean -being taken and redistributed - taken by whom, redistributed to whom
The 15% I mentioned is the maximum allowed insurance companies for profits, administration and overhead. It is too much, but less than it used to be. And it was the Republicans and insurance companies who nixed a public insurance choice, which would have had low overhead (Medicare, the public program for the elderly, has an overhead rate of 4%)
>
> Let me use an analogy:
>
> Democrats would think it is fair to take one year of life from 50 individuals, in order to add 42.5 years of life to an individual who would die younger (I.e. 50 years - 15% = 42.5 years 'redistributed'). In reality, however, the *total* cost of the 'redistribution' is likely much higher than 15%.
>
> Obamacare does not add to the 'net health' of the system. When something is 'free' and delivered without individual accountability, it becomes abused and it hence inherently wasteful.
>
> I don't know what you mean about democrats believing in comparing years of life. In the US, it's typically conservatives, not liberals, who want cost-benefit analyses done for environmental rules. No such analysis is done for health care.I don't agree that things that are free are abused. Do people break their legs in France because it's free to get it set? Or suffer depression in Canada because it's free to visit a psychiatrist? Are you mentally ill because it's free to be so in Canada?
And, in any case, you seem not to understand the US system. People have high co-pays and deductibles, including the vast majority who have their insurance through work. Americans are very big on cost-shifting, so that people become more "responsible consumers" and shop around for lower cost providers. But let me ask you - if you had blinding headaches and your doctor prescribed an MRI, would you spend a week calling around trying to find the lowest cost MRI provider? (Assuming you could get a straight answer about the cost, which you probably could not.)
I really don't know what you're talking about.
And, just for some non-medical examples. Do people swim more when the public pool is free and thus "abuse" the free pool? Do people in Europe and Canada and Japan go to college because it's free or very cheap and "abuse" the cheap higher education? Do parents in the US and most other developed countries "abuse" the free K-12 education system by sending their kids to school? Or abuse free fire protection by setting their homes on fire?
> Linakdge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.