Obamacare

[clocker]

Those health-care options you see will be eliminated over time.

Why and sez who?

History says.

So you're simply saying that as a scare tactic...no proof.

[devilsadvocate]

It appears Americans are flocking to other countries for treatment

BANGALORE — Lying in a hospital bed in Bangalore’s immaculate Wockhardt Hospital recuperating from a knee replacement surgery on his right knee, Les Seaver-Davis counts off on his fingers the number of times he has been in and out of hospitals back home in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Seven? Eight? He gives up after a few moments, pauses to survey his pristine room, and declares, “For the first time in my life, I feel like I’m cared for by the best people in the world.”
Earlier this month Seaver-Davis, a family mediator and teacher, traveled halfway across the world from Greensboro to Bangalore, where Wockhardt’s surgeons removed the loose implants from a previous surgery in his knee and replaced them with fresh implants.
The surgery cost $11,000, a bargain-basement price that was a quarter of what hospitals in North Carolina were quoting. “If more people knew about the quality of medical care here, American hospitals would go out of business,” said Seaver-Davis.
With the debate raging over health care reform, growing numbers of Americans like Seaver-Davis aren't waiting for Washington: They are outsourcing themselves, or are being outsourced by their employers, to India for medical treatments. Superior care coupled with low costs in internationally accredited hospitals like Wockhardt is proving a hard-to-beat attraction for Westerners.
The global economic downturn is only accelerating the trend. Many U.S. corporations looking to slash employees’ medical bills are making India a medical refuge, as are under-insured and uninsured Americans.
This year Wockhardt has already received 580 American patients for treatments ranging from cardiac bypass surgeries, organ transplants and complex spinal surgeries. That's more than triple the number for the same period last year, the hospital says.

The whole article is here http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/i...india?page=0,0

I have to wonder if these hospitals in other nations are providing this first rate cheap medical service while their own nationals go wanting. Is the same service available to all their own citizens or is this just a "millionaires playground" fenced off from the surrounding poverty?

[Barbarossa]

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?

Sick people who can't afford treatment currently?

Personally I believe basic healthcare is a right not a privilege.

[Rat Faced]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

[j2k4]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.

[lynx]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.

I assume you are expecting to have to pay 78%/65% of the costs of private health insurance. I'd find such a prospect very daunting too.

If instead one of the European models is followed the overall costs should be a fraction of the sums you are predicting, and consequently your "share" much lower too.

I'm well aware of the conservative idea that the state should not operate where the private sector can do a better job, but I have to confess that healthcare is one of the few areas where state intervention seems to produce better results.

[j2k4]

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.

I assume you are expecting to have to pay 78%/65% of the costs of private health insurance. I'd find such a prospect very daunting too.

If instead one of the European models is followed the overall costs should be a fraction of the sums you are predicting, and consequently your "share" much lower too.

I'm well aware of the conservative idea that the state should not operate where the private sector can do a better job, but I have to confess that healthcare is one of the few areas where state intervention seems to produce better results.

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

We are urged here to model ourselves after any of several Canadian/European systems that have myriad problems relative to public cost and accessibility.

We have a President touting the ideal of government-run healthcare, and insisting his program be instituted as soon as possible, so we can begin to enjoy the benefits as I have outlined above.

To reiterate, and clarify - I will (according to B.O.'s plan) assume costs of 78%/65% per unmarried/married employee.

These costs are assessed in aid of supporting the government-administered program.

These costs will be assessed even if the employee in question is covered by a spouse's private plan, or if the employee has a private plan he/she pays for.

[devilsadvocate]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

[clocker]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

"Accessibilty is not the problem"?
Says who?

Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, age or other risk factors is very common.

Out of curiousity...how did you "find out today" what your costs will be under a plan that doesn't yet exist?

[j2k4]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

"Accessibilty is not the problem"?
Says who?

Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, age or other risk factors is very common.

Out of curiousity...how did you "find out today" what your costs will be under a plan that doesn't yet exist?

Thank you for not missing the same point as the other fellow, and congratulations for missing a different one - that I was talking about health-care, not insurance.

As to the other, look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/7...msid=49542&v=1