Quantcast

Will Obamacare Make Your Healthcare Easier or More Difficult?

Newsmax 2013/01/25 21:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Sales of “ObamaCare Survival Guide” have exceeded 100,000 copies and the book now ranks No. 4 on Barnes & Noble’s list of best-sellers. “ObamaCare Survival Guide: The Affordable Care Act and What It Means for You and Your Healthcare” is the first comprehensive but easy-to-understand road map of the 2,700-page law officially called the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The guide also ranks No. 4 on Amazon.com’s list of the best-selling books in the Politics & Government category, and No. 1 in the Health Policy category.

obamacare survival guide
“Since the Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare’s the law of the land, we felt it was important to let people know what’s in this law,” author Nick Tate tells Newsmax. “Many provisions have already rolled out and there are many more to come so it’s not an overstatement to say that this law will affect everyone in this country."

The ObamaCare law "fundamentally changes the way healthcare is delivered, restructures it,” he adds. “The way you will interact with your doctor, your insurer, your hospital will fundamentally change, so this book attempts to give you the road map to get the best bang for your healthcare dollar.”

“ObamaCare Survival Guide” is of vital interest in particular to the insured, the employed, the uninsured, seniors and Medicare users, young adults, business owners, prescription drug users, medical professionals, Medicaid recipients, doctors, and union members.

Read More: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-surviva...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • hazel 2013/09/20 02:24:25 (edited)
    Easier
    hazel
    MUCH EASIER BECAUSE IT HELPS ME DIE SOONER BECAUSE I CANT AFFORD IT IF I NEED CRITICAL CARE AND THEN I WONT NEED IT.....THATS HOW ITS SET UP
  • Kikidi 2013/03/12 17:23:25
  • Mike 2013/02/24 05:32:06
    More Difficult
    Mike
    Those colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies are always rough!
  • Oliver Presley 2013/02/19 15:07:54
    More Difficult
    Oliver Presley
    +1
    It will without a doubt make my health care more difficult. It already made my insurance premiums jump up 100%. It made it more costly for insurance companies to do business, and not surprisingly they passed the cost right down to the consumer. The premium hikes do not stop there, in 2014 insurance premiums will take another hike for those under 30 thanks to a feature of obamacare limiting the difference they can charge in insurance premiums from 5 to 1 to 3 to 1 ...
  • tom Savage 2013/02/17 20:00:00
    Easier
    tom Savage
    Tate's leaps of logic are frequent; acknowledging, for instance, that life expectancy in the U.S. is lower than that of 36 other advanced nations, he says it is still higher than the world average, implying that it's reasonable to compare American lifespan with that of the world's poorest nations. He states that a focus on prevention, and required preventive screening, will increase costs, though many major insurance companies already pay 100% of the cos of these test in the belief that an ounce of prevention costs less than a pound of cure for, say, breast or cervical cancer. Tate covers many key points that should be clarified in an intelligent discussion about health care in the United States. Unfortunately, in undermining his credibility with his blatant animus, he will feed political arguments rather than intelligent discussions.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/19 16:20:10
    Oliver Presley
    I haven't read the book so I cannot defend it, but I can address the points you made against it. The life expectancy in the U.S. is lower because of high Heart Disease and murder rates. With those figures removed from all the countries the life expectancy for the U.S. jumps to the top area of the list. Required preventative screening would cause an increase in cost because completely healthy people who normally wouldn't go would be forced to go, increasing demand, naturally, increasing cost since supply would remain the same. Yes most insurance companies cover preventive 100% but it's voluntary and the premiums are set based on usage. So even now if the rate of people using that 100% coverage was to increase, the premiums would increase as well.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/19 16:57:17
    tom Savage
    In the research paper published by Deloitte Center for Health Solutions based on data compiled from 1 year's experience after the ACA (Obamacare) was passed in 2010 they have much praise except for their prediction that, "What it might not do as well is bend the cost curve." 2 additional years of data show that the increase in health care cost, while not stopped, has slowed dramatically.

    It is yet to be seen what will occur after all provisions are in place beginning in 2014. There are prognosticators lined up on either side of the aisle. the one thing that we can know for sure is that after Obama's reelection and the SCOTUS's ruling last summer ACA is here to stay. There will be no repeal and there will be no defunding. Whatever the consequences, good or bad, they will be ours. I pray for good.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/19 17:42:46
    Oliver Presley
    The increases would have slowed, they will be abrupt as the new policies go into effect, then it'll probably follow along with inflation. The 2014 change I referred to will only affect the young, the old will see a decrease in premiums. It's a continued leaching of the young by the old, though I can hardly blame the old, as you can see from the opinions demographic, the 18-24(the ones who will be negatively affected by Obamacare the most) voted in the highest percentage that it will make health care "easier", while the older demographics voted in the highest percentages that it will make it more difficult.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/19 23:00:25
    tom Savage
    Like most everyone, we have our opinions of what will happen. Some based on well educated guesses and some simply WAGs. We won't know for some time to come what affect ACA will have.

    While Medicare is not the self financing program that is Social Security it is greatly supported through payroll tax so the old are not leaning that hard on the young. In fact, if the changes proposed by Simpson/Bowles is approved the program will be a break-even where paid in = paid out. Once all the blustering is over and a deal is made there will be changes in the way Medicare is financed.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/19 23:31:28
    Oliver Presley
    The tightening of the restrictions of how much more than their younger counterparts they can charge the elderly from 5 to 1 to 3 to 1, will without a doubt mean an increase in premiums for the younger and a decrease in premiums for the elderly. Unless you believe the insurance companies will just lower premiums for the elderly and eat the cost. As for Social Security being self financed, that is an absolute absurdity. Social Security no longer can cover current benefits out of current taxes but instead is taking money from its trust funds, and that well will run dry by 2030, by the most conservative of estimates. And social security and medicare are just another example of the elderly leaching from the youth. Social Security and Medicare are massive in cost and they go to all seniors, regardless of demonstrated need.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/19 23:59:46
    tom Savage
    I repeat, changes need to be made. Increasing the payroll tax cap from $113,700 to $250,000 (or even higher), extending the retirement age 2 years over the next 10 will preserve Social Security for the next 100 years without "leaching" further from the youth. Someday the youth will be the old. Preserving SS will be important to them then.

    Medicare needs more tweaking but the salary cap increase and extending the eligibility age will make a big difference.

    Now by elderly you must be talking about those under 65. Is that the case?
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/20 00:59:17
    Oliver Presley
    Generally, elderly would be over 65, if you're asking what is elderly for the higher insurance premiums I'm sure it varies depending on their personal health probably over 55 or 60. I personally think Social Security should completely abolished (even though I have close family members currently on it), when I'm older I would hate to think of myself as a burden to my daughter, or her kids. If I haven't saved for retirement by then, that would be my own fault.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/22 15:46:52
    tom Savage
    Currently, states have the option of setting up their own exchanges. Most have done so or are in the process. If they choose not to then there will be a national exchange available. These exchanges will be private insurers offering HC coverage to all comers regardless of age, health history, preexisting condition, and all of the rules that ACA dictates.

    Insurance companies are anxious for 2014 and the influx of new customers. they are currently lobbying States to get the few straggles on board with State exchanges. The result will be lower premiums for many and available HC insurance for many who can not otherwise find it at affordable rates (my 25 year old diabetic sone is one). So, if your 56 and looking for a health care policy today you are SOL unless you are in a group. This time next year the same 56 year old has coverage available through an exchange (another name for a large group). That has nothing to do with medicare.

    SS is not a retirement plan and never was intended to be one. It is a supplemental safety net. While it needs tweaking it has been self supporting. The trust fund is dwindling and without making some changes like I suggested earlier or would disappear. That will not happen. You are in a very small minority that would see SS go away. That will n...



    Currently, states have the option of setting up their own exchanges. Most have done so or are in the process. If they choose not to then there will be a national exchange available. These exchanges will be private insurers offering HC coverage to all comers regardless of age, health history, preexisting condition, and all of the rules that ACA dictates.

    Insurance companies are anxious for 2014 and the influx of new customers. they are currently lobbying States to get the few straggles on board with State exchanges. The result will be lower premiums for many and available HC insurance for many who can not otherwise find it at affordable rates (my 25 year old diabetic sone is one). So, if your 56 and looking for a health care policy today you are SOL unless you are in a group. This time next year the same 56 year old has coverage available through an exchange (another name for a large group). That has nothing to do with medicare.

    SS is not a retirement plan and never was intended to be one. It is a supplemental safety net. While it needs tweaking it has been self supporting. The trust fund is dwindling and without making some changes like I suggested earlier or would disappear. That will not happen. You are in a very small minority that would see SS go away. That will not occur. Nor should it.

    I'm sure you are providing for yourself adequately. In our society we have an opportunity to succeed. However, that's just an opportunity. Many, through no fault of their own, fail. As we've seen in the recent past, millions lost their jobs. Many were face with no option but to raid their retirement accounts. A person 55 with 16+ years left in the workforce who must start over saving for retirement will have a supplemental SS check available to avoid destitution at 66 or 70.

    SS is not a burden on the young it is a promise that they can take to chances our society provides and be assured that there is a fail save available. Working hard is no guarantee of a bright future. But, it does improve your chances.
    (more)
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/22 17:26:35
    Oliver Presley
    Yes, they will see a new influx of customers, but they will be forced to take in high risk people at lower premiums, this will be made up for by low risk people paying higher premiums(younger insurance carriers). Included in this is healthy people forced to get coverage, paying high premiums to subsidize the high risk people who are paying lower premiums.
    Social Security is a burden on the youth and the supreme court ruled that no person is entitled to any benefits from it, because it is a tax. So the younger people paying into it are not guaranteed ANY benefits though they've been paying into it, far from a "promise" of any kind. It will not disappear, sadly, but the only way to fix it would be to raise the social security tax and allow it to take money from the federal income tax pool, where it can benefit from those tax hikes. This is, of course, a bad solution and will further damage the economy.
    You misuse the term "many"; relatively few fail to the point of needing assistance. And if you fail and receive assistance you have little motivation to try again. Many abuse the system, few need it. And the few that need it could seek help at many different charitable organizations. Places that provide a place to stay, clothes to wear, food to eat. But they also require yo...
    Yes, they will see a new influx of customers, but they will be forced to take in high risk people at lower premiums, this will be made up for by low risk people paying higher premiums(younger insurance carriers). Included in this is healthy people forced to get coverage, paying high premiums to subsidize the high risk people who are paying lower premiums.
    Social Security is a burden on the youth and the supreme court ruled that no person is entitled to any benefits from it, because it is a tax. So the younger people paying into it are not guaranteed ANY benefits though they've been paying into it, far from a "promise" of any kind. It will not disappear, sadly, but the only way to fix it would be to raise the social security tax and allow it to take money from the federal income tax pool, where it can benefit from those tax hikes. This is, of course, a bad solution and will further damage the economy.
    You misuse the term "many"; relatively few fail to the point of needing assistance. And if you fail and receive assistance you have little motivation to try again. Many abuse the system, few need it. And the few that need it could seek help at many different charitable organizations. Places that provide a place to stay, clothes to wear, food to eat. But they also require you to be home every night at a certain time and actively seek out jobs, not as easily abused.
    Working hard is no longer a guarantee of a bright future, but that's because of government interference. If we eliminate that, the future can once again be bright. The government as it is, bloated and spending out of control, cannot sustain itself. As is evidenced by what we've seen in the past, and what's happening right now in Europe.
    (more)
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/22 19:53:08
    tom Savage
    That's called spreading the risk as in a group plan. Ever notice that group plans have much lower premiums that do individual plans even though the group plans take all ages and conditions?

    Everyone in America gets health care. However, those who, either by choice or financial inability, that do not have a health care plan get treatment at the most expensive source, the emergency room. And, if they can't pay it's you and me that does. That is precisely why those choosing not to get coverage after 1/1/2014 will pay a penalty. They do not get t gamble with everyone else's money any longer.

    As I've pointed out earlier, it not necessary to raise the SS tax to insure it's longevity. Instead, we need to increase the cap from $113K to $250K. Also, doing what Reagan and Tip O'Neill agreed to in the 80s, a gentle rise in the eligibility age.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/22 20:24:43
    Oliver Presley
    The group plans work best when the insurance company can set the parameters, in this forced setting, the young and healthy subsidize the elderly because the insurance companies are forced to charge them higher premiums in order to maintain a successful business. This change benefits a few atypical situations, will be abused by many, and hurts more than it helps. We cannot allow policies to be set by rare events.
    Yes, the healthy people who do not have health care take a risk in order to save money, or live a lifestyle with more luxuries than they would otherwise. The majority of these people do not end up needing medical care, so again, it is not okay to make policies based on atypical scenarios. As for the people who can't afford it and us ending up footing the bill when they go to the ER, how is this different than us footing the bill with a tax? The difference would be because they incur debt, they will be less likely to go to the ER, while with insurance they will be more likely to go to a doctor for every little ailment they otherwise would not.
    Those would be helpful changes to social security, but allowing the younger people to keep the money and invest it themselves would be better and more efficient, for them. If they choose not to, that's their choice, and they will deal with the consequences.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/22 20:33:30
    tom Savage
    OH but it is OK. So says the majority of your fellow Americans and the SCOTUS. It's legal, Constitutional, and we the people decided we want it. You can disagree and that's your right. But you can't change it my friend.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/22 22:07:24
    Oliver Presley
    Polls show differently(I know you can't trust polls, but even this one shows more people believing it will make healthcare more difficult). The Americans may have voted in these bureaucrats who want to push their agendas, but most people do not want it. It's may be constitutional now, but these taxes were unconstitutional until one of the worst Presidents in history, William Howard Taft, and the 16th amendment to the constitution. But this question was whether or not the ACA will make healthcare easier or more difficult. It has without a doubt made it more difficult in the short term(for the vast majority of people), and will only continue to make it more difficult. No one argued the legality of it or what the foolish American people voted for.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/23 00:10:23
    tom Savage
    Without a doubt? Surly you don't expect me to buy that? And are you referring to this poll? The SH poll? Even you don't buy that.

    Polls are fun but hardly conclusive. Well, except for one that takes place on the 1st Tuesday in November. Now that poll was conclusive.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/23 05:18:10 (edited)
    Oliver Presley
    I know they are far from conclusive or meaningful, but when it comes to free info on the internet I haven't seen a poll showing a differing opinion, and the polls I'm shown by the media show the same(I give them less credit). But there's something to be said about their consistency. And I say without a doubt, because it is without a doubt. You are no longer arguing any of the points that it is going to make health care more difficult. You keep just eluding to a Presidents election; a point I have not argued to the contrary.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/23 18:44:11
    tom Savage
    I alude to the election because you reference unscientific polls and substantial evidence of correctness. For a pulse of the peoples' opinion the Presidential election was the poll that mattered. Not that a majority opinion makes the base question of this poll either yes or no. Only time will reveal the facts.

    Our exercise here is merely for our entertainment. It has no chance of changing Obamacare. The ACA was solidified in the results of the election.

    There is another more important question, why does health care cost so much? The following link takes you to an article that, with great acuity, answers that question. And that is something we can actually make better.

    I'm am interested to know your take on it.

    http://healthland.time.com/20...
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/23 19:53:03 (edited)
    Oliver Presley
    For sure, the state of health care in this country is not perfect, far from it. The fact that this country got stuck with health care tied to our jobs is silly, and the reason? Because health insurance was not taxed. Companies found a loop hole that allowed them to offer more benefits to their employees without paying taxes. It became a very cost effective way to provide more for your employees. When the IRS got wind of this and tried to enforce taxing, the people were too used to not paying taxes on it, so they fought the taxation, and won. And so now medical care providers do not have to compete with each other on price, they charge whatever gets them the most from the insurance company. It's price fixing, and it's a result of government intervention. In this case they were also wanting to go to a specific doctor, and if he is among the best, well, his motivation to remain a top doctor is largely monetary. So it'll cost more because that hospital is having to pay him more to keep him there. But all in all, the state of health care in this country may not be in a good place, but it's because of the government, more legislation will not fix it, only make it worse. The state of medical care in this country however, is great, albeit expensive.
    An easier fix would be to t...


    For sure, the state of health care in this country is not perfect, far from it. The fact that this country got stuck with health care tied to our jobs is silly, and the reason? Because health insurance was not taxed. Companies found a loop hole that allowed them to offer more benefits to their employees without paying taxes. It became a very cost effective way to provide more for your employees. When the IRS got wind of this and tried to enforce taxing, the people were too used to not paying taxes on it, so they fought the taxation, and won. And so now medical care providers do not have to compete with each other on price, they charge whatever gets them the most from the insurance company. It's price fixing, and it's a result of government intervention. In this case they were also wanting to go to a specific doctor, and if he is among the best, well, his motivation to remain a top doctor is largely monetary. So it'll cost more because that hospital is having to pay him more to keep him there. But all in all, the state of health care in this country may not be in a good place, but it's because of the government, more legislation will not fix it, only make it worse. The state of medical care in this country however, is great, albeit expensive.
    An easier fix would be to tax health insurance. Less people would have it as a result. Hospitals could not remain in business if no one could go, their prices would have to drop. Doctors would advertise their rates and compete with one another, instead of the current: is he on our insurance network?
    I never argued that health care here was perfect, just that the ACA would make it worse. I argued that the medical care here was expensive because of the luxuries we are afforded, and that is why health care expenditures for the U.S. are so high.
    Also, the example in that story would again be an atypical example. I wouldn't think that the majority of Americans are people who just opened a small business and develop cancer, tragic? yes, common? no.
    I should also point out, nothing in the ACA would have made a difference there.
    (more)
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/24 17:00:32
    tom Savage
    Please read the article I included a link to in my last post. Here it is again.

    You are headed down the right road but you have some misconceptions that this great piece will clear up.

    http://healthland.time.com/20...
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/24 18:15:31
    Oliver Presley
    I did read the article. And as I said, there's nothing the ACA will do to change that. The amount they were paying seemed about accurate for current insurance premiums and is more a statement for why forcing small businesses to offer health insurance is a bad thing. And again, their situation was atypical. Yes hospitals make profit, there's nothing wrong with that, the problem is that they do not have to compete with each other. More legislation will not fix that, it will only make it worse.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/25 17:39:38
    tom Savage
    I tend to agree that more legislation can fix the over charging by hospitals. However, if everyone, or nearly everyone, is insured then the hospitals will charge the lower rates negotiated with insurance carriers for their various charges. Further, the coverage caps that have been prevalent in the health insurance industry go away under ACA which will help relieve the enormous bankruptcy rate from medical bills - 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/25 19:21:15 (edited)
    Oliver Presley
    It will force insurance premiums up, they have to cover the extra costs somehow. More people on insurance will mean more hospital visits, increasing demand, driving up hospital prices, further increasing insurance premiums, to cover the rising costs. So bankrupting more people whether they go to the hospital or not is somehow better?
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/25 20:53:43
    tom Savage
    LOL!!! Oliver!!! It can't be both ways. More bankruptcy because more are insured? I'm sure you are well informed but you missed this one. The actuarials and the underwriters disagree.

    Yes, premiums will go up. You will recall that one of the issues leading up to the recent financial crisis was the exponential increase in health insurance costs.

    You do have some things right, we can agree.

    However, for a clear look at what experts are looking at the following link to the Kaiser Foundation report can help:

    http://www.kff.org/insurance/...

    Basically, we have only conjecture today. There are experts lined up on either side predicting everything from Shangri-La to doomsday for the next decade. Something we do know for certain is that health care costs and health insurance have risen but at a slower pace since enactment of ACA then they did the decade before.

    Either way, since Obama was reelected ACA will not be repealed or defunded. Whatever happens, good - bad - or nothing, it will happen with ACA in place during my lifetime.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/26 02:09:47
    Oliver Presley
    There's no conjecture, it's simple economic principles. There's no "both ways" about it. Premiums will rise because the companies providing coverage will see their cost of business go up, costing people more money.
    When everyone is forced to have health insurance, the people who did not have it before will go to the doctor more often, increasing demand, which will increase the cost. This increased cost will again increase the cost of business for the insurance companies, who will again, raise their premiums. Costing people more money. So instead of the people who did not carry insurance going into debt, everyone pays more. And this is fair to you?
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/26 14:50:22
    tom Savage
    You may be right. I admire your assuredness but surly you aren't delusional enough to think you are in the majority opinion. Sure, you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. However, whether your right or wrong makes no difference. We are where we are. So, since the ACA will not be repealed, other than proclaim, "I told you so", what do you suggest?
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/26 21:21:05
    Oliver Presley
    I may be right? Are you suggesting that increased costs for a company do not ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumer? And increased demand while the supply remains unchanged doesn't lead to higher prices? Our only options at this point are either repeal ACA or pay more. The only uncertain is exactly how much more it's going to cost; history of similar legislation shows us the supply will actually go down, less doctors and hospitals, while the demand is going up. But that cannot be assured, just very likely. As for the repealing of ACA, history again shows us governments tend to only grow themselves, they rarely choose to shrink themselves. Even if Republicans took office and controlled the house and senate it would be very unlikely they would repeal the ACA. Just like when Obama took office and the Democrats had a majority in congress, they did not repeal any of the legislation enacted by G. W. Bush that was panned by the liberal media. In fact in many cases, they expanded on those laws. I only take solace in the fact that it cannot continue, the government cannot continue to rack up debt and spend out of control. Inevitably it will reach a point of being unable to sustain itself.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/27 20:18:46
    tom Savage
    In its most recent baseline projections, CBO reduced its estimates of spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs compared with its estimates in the August 2012 baseline. For the 2013–2022 period, projected spending for those programs is now $382 billion (or 3½ percent) below the agency’s estimates in August 2012.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/27 20:40:55
    Oliver Presley
    Here's some information relevant to the discussion:
    The Times reports that health insurers have successfully raised rates by at least 20 percent in Ohio and Florida; and in California, three insurers have requested increases of more than 20 percent for individuals who do not receive employer-sponsored insurance and small businesses, since the ACA was passed.
    Aetna’s CEO warned that small and individual group markets were likely to increase by an average of 25 to 50 percent, and suggested that some policyholders might see their rates double.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
    Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, a recent survey of insurance companies finds that “if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher.”
    Wisconsin predicts an average premium increase of 41 percent.
    Ohio’s Department of Insurance says “the individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55 percent to 85 percent above current market average rates.”
  • ¤Creepy Lumberjack¤ >-QC-< 2013/02/15 02:20:49
    Easier
    ¤Creepy Lumberjack¤ >-QC-<
    +1
    Universal healthcare does work. It's just that people need to be willing to give it a try.

    canadian universal health care
  • Oliver ... ¤Creepy... 2013/02/19 14:44:46
    Oliver Presley
    +1
    Our health care is more expensive, because we have a higher quality of health care. It's foolish to compare our health care system (you get your own room in a hospital) to other countries, I hope you like wards; because if you want cheaper prices, prepare for cheaper services.
  • tom Savage Oliver ... 2013/02/19 17:05:08
    tom Savage
    I really wish you were right but that's not the case.

    The prime reason the majority of Americans supported the ACA is because we lagged so far behind the rest of the developed world in quality of health care.

    Of the 191 members of the World Health care Organization the US ranked 1st in cost and 37th in quality in 2008. Let's pray the ACA can improve our performance.
  • Oliver ... tom Savage 2013/02/19 18:38:21
    Oliver Presley
    I don't know what data they used to rank quality, but in the U.S.: you more than likely get the privacy of your own room in a hospital(as opposed to a ward), more than likely a doctor will see you(as opposed to a nurse or orderly) as doctors are more readily available in the U.S., the waiting time to be treated is significantly lower in the U.S. Also, when you look at cancer treatment, or other actual medical care issues in the U.S., you see the U.S. with the highest, or among the highest, cure rates. Besides all that, nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower health care costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.
  • NECHOII Oliver ... 2013/02/24 01:30:16
    NECHOII
    It is projected that OBAMACARE will cut Health costs by over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over twenty years.
    In Canada, where we have had Universal Health Care for 46 years, survival rates are higher in Canada than in the United States for four types of disease conditions - Colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney transplants and liver transplants
    Also 57 % of U.S. patients have REPROCESSED DIALYZERS used on them compared to 0 % of Canadian patients.
    Average in - Hospital treatment costs are nearly twice as high in the U.S., ( $ 20,673 compared to $ 10,373 for Canadian patients.
  • Oliver ... NECHOII 2013/02/24 05:30:08 (edited)
    Oliver Presley
    Wow, none of that is true ... well, the time frame of universal health care in Canada and cost difference might be true, but I've already addressed why it costs more ... go troll somewhere else. If it's great in Canada why do more than 30,000 people a year come to the U.S. to pay for medical care when they get it for 'free' in Canada?
  • NECHOII Oliver ... 2013/02/24 07:56:17
    NECHOII
    It is ALL true. Canadians who come to the U.S. for any medical treatment, ON REFERRAL BY THEIR CANADIAN DOCTOR, will get all medical expenses covered in the U.S. by our Canadian Universal Health Care.
    Oh we have many uninsured American and even MEXICANS coming up here for medical treatment in our Emergency wards of our Hospitals because they know it is illegal in Canada to turn any ill or injured patient away.
    One of those American patients was a little girl named Sarah Palin.
  • Oliver ... NECHOII 2013/02/24 14:05:17
    Oliver Presley
    Ummm, no, it's not. Can't debate with a person who insists on using false information. They leave because they do not want to wait and they pay out of their pocket. I doubt Canadian doctors are referring patients out of the country that often, and if they are, why can't they take care of them in Canada if their medical care is so superior? It's also illegal in the U.S. for an E.R. to turn away any ill or injured patient, so ... you have no point as well as making things up ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 45 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/27 01:46:01

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals