Questions for our American friends

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

So you look kind of like this???

No. That is just a Hollywood fantasy. Much like your image of Russia.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

No. That is just a Hollywood fantasy. Much like your image of Russia.

HEY my image of Russia is firmly rooted all the way back to the Cold War and the damn drills I had to go through.
Lately of course it is being solidified by Palo's posts.

[lothian]

Can anybody remember a comedy film set in NYC in the late 60's or early 70's where New Yorkers had been infected by some sort of virus that took away all their anger , with the result that the city turned into total chaos ?

[palo5]

I have a question about healthcare. I saw two stories today that made me wonder how both can be right

The first was a discussion between two economists about why the labor force participation rate in the US is so low compared with other economies. And one asked the other what he paid in medical insurance. "About $25,000" he said. "And what are your deductibles?". The answer was about $5,000, meaning he paid up to $30,000 per year for insurance. And what was the average earnings of Americans? Around $50,000, was the answer, which meant about 50% of Americans earned less, and many earn much less

But if you're poor enough, you get medicaid, which means you don't pay medical insurance at all, because the government pays for you. The logic went that if you earned less than a certain amount, it made financial sense to drop out of the labor force, and that's why the participation rate is so low

Ok, I'm not used to thinking like that, but what they said sounded logical

Until I read that about 250,000 Americans die early each year because they can't afford medical insurance

So, my question is: are these two stories reconcilable, or is one of them wrong?

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by palo5

So, my question is: are these two stories reconcilable, or is one of them wrong?

There's a couple of things at work here.. the participation rate, and the impact of Obamacare. The degree to which they are related is up for debate.

The labor force participation rate is currently on the rise after falling steadily from 2009 to 2016. Unemployment rates for minorities in America is currently at records lows. The thing to remember is that those aged 16-64 who have no job and aren't looking for one are not counted in the numbers. There could be a number of reasons for this: students, stay at home moms, those who give care to family members, disabled people, and your basic bums that are perfectly happy to live off the dole.

Then we have Obamacare. Despite the hype, it's now obvious that this was nothing more than an attempt to drive private health insurance companies out of business in a push towards single payer (government) healthcare. The promises of keeping your doctor and paying less were proven to be bullshit. The plan caused countless employers to cancel the coverage they provided and move people into government exchanges. The plan was also based on those young people who didn't need coverage paying the freight for the old and sick. The young people stayed away in droves.. those that did sign up were faced with monthly premiums equal to a car payment and deductibles that were in the thousands. In my 30 year old daughter's case, the premiums were $400/month with a $7,000 deductible.. meaning with this "coverage" you could be out of pocket over $10,000 before it paid anything. And it went up from there. Unless we're talking catastrophic circumstances, it was far cheaper to ignore the mandate and pay the penalty... which millions did. Tis why so many of the exchanges have failed.

As to 250,000 that die each year due to no insurance, that sounds like a number derived to scare people. I've yet to hear of carts going round with chants of "bring out your dead". Nobody goes around and sweeps the dead off the streets each morning because they suddenly dropped dead due to a lack of insurance.

I defy anyone to show me a death certificate where cause of death is listed as "no insurance".

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Decadence

...
As to 250,000 that die each year due to no insurance, that sounds like a number derived to scare people. I've yet to hear of carts going round with chants of "bring out your dead". Nobody goes around and sweeps the dead off the streets each morning because they suddenly dropped dead due to a lack of insurance.

I defy anyone to show me a death certificate where cause of death is listed as "no insurance".

Thanks for the explanation, although I don't fully understand it

Concerning the quote above: sorry, I should have given you some context. Firstly, I didn't say anyone dies because they have no insurance -- I said I read they die early, meaning sooner than expected. I don't know if the number is true, it's just the number they gave

How is that possible? Because of late diagnosis. For example, a woman with breast cancer has an almost 100% 5-year survival chance if she's diagnosed early. But if she's diagnosed late because she doesn't see a physician because she has no insurance, her chances are nowhere near as good, and she will most likely die early

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It was not an attempt to say bad things

[bowlinggreen]

^ It also needs to be pointed out that if you get seriously injured or come in with a serious illness in the emergency room, they don't turn you away.

IIRC, public hospitals are not allowed to even contemplate this, legally.

But they still bill you, if you have no insurance.

So every year there are uninsured people who ring up huge medical bills, and end up declaring bankruptcy to get out from under. This number probably runs into the high hundreds of thousands every year.

So you get sick people losing a majority of their assets in court, and the hospitals only getting a fraction of what they are "owed" in many cases, due to the lack of a rational national health care system in America.

But the lawyers make out as usual.

The brunt of healthcare costs is borne by those who can barely afford to, but nonetheless pay huge insurance premiums in the hope of one day staving off the Grim Reaper. And a chunk of that is siphoned off by HMO and insurance execs who live lavish lifestyles on the backs of those who continue to pour in the funds.

It's a very corrupt system.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by palo5

Thanks for the explanation, although I don't fully understand it

Concerning the quote above: sorry, I should have given you some context. Firstly, I didn't say anyone dies because they have no insurance -- I said I read they die early, meaning sooner than expected. I don't know if the number is true, it's just the number they gave

How is that possible? Because of late diagnosis. For example, a woman with breast cancer has an almost 100% 5-year survival chance if she's diagnosed early. But if she's diagnosed late because she doesn't see a physician because she has no insurance, her chances are nowhere near as good, and she will most likely die early

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It was not an attempt to say bad things

It's all good.. I didn't take it as a negative. Actually, numbers like that are normally used as political talking points. We all know that anyone can create a survey and get the numerical results they're looking for.

Diagnosis requires a doctor visit.. which most people are loathe to do even with insurance. My grandfather was like that.. lived with prostate cancer for years because he didn't want to go to the doctor. As it didn't spread anywhere else, he lived to be 91. Did he die early because he refused to go see his doctor? We'll never know.

Even without insurance, anyone can walk into any emergency room at any time and get treatment. Yes, you'll be given a bill. There are ways to get help with that bill. Most hospitals offer discounts for those who self pay.

Most Americans aren't too keen on the idea of government run healthcare.. for me, it's due to my family's experiences with Veterans Administration. Even tho it's supposed to be getting better, after seeing that, I'll pass. If that's as good as they have for our military, I shudder to think what they'd call acceptable for the general public.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Decadence

It's all good.. I didn't take it as a negative. Actually, numbers like that are normally used as political talking points. We all know that anyone can create a survey and get the numerical results they're looking for.

Diagnosis requires a doctor visit.. which most people are loathe to do even with insurance. My grandfather was like that.. lived with prostate cancer for years because he didn't want to go to the doctor. As it didn't spread anywhere else, he lived to be 91. Did he die early because he refused to go see his doctor? We'll never know.

Even without insurance, anyone can walk into any emergency room at any time and get treatment. Yes, you'll be given a bill. There are ways to get help with that bill. Most hospitals offer discounts for those who self pay.

Most Americans aren't too keen on the idea of government run healthcare.. for me, it's due to my family's experiences with Veterans Administration. Even tho it's supposed to be getting better, after seeing that, I'll pass. If that's as good as they have for our military, I shudder to think what they'd call acceptable for the general public.

But is private healthcare insurance even affordable in the United States? And, assuming that it is, what happens when claim-time comes around? It is well known all over the world that the purpose for which insurance company claims departments exist is to not-pay. That is the business model and the basis principle on which private insurance works: to receive premiums and then to not-pay. I emphatically prefer the British single-payer healthcare system model, because it is not allowed to refuse care when you turn up sick, and has a very uphill task if it ever wants to rip out money from a British citizen at the point of supply for providing heathcare. This is a system designed to deliver healthcare, whereas the American system appears to be designed to rip people off and to not-deliver healthcare.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Most Americans aren't too keen on the idea of government run healthcare...

Actually, I've read the opposite. Polled individually and without knowing whose positions they are, most Americans agree with Bernie Sanders, particularly about single-payer healthcare, and free higher education

I assume "single-payer" means the government -- don't know who else it could mean

Yikes, if that's true, it means I agree with most Americans about something!