Killing Obamacare means pre-existing conditions not covered!!!

FACT: in most cities and large towns the government controls and runs and regulates and administers police/fire/schools/ems/water/sewer/highway maintenance.

this is socialism.

 

I know you didn't say it was about cost. I was clarifying - in case anyone might suggest it - that it wasn't about cost.

Again, the NHS didn't say they would be excluded from the NHS if they went outside the NHS. The court said that the parents were not permitted to take the child for treatment outside the UK.

The NHS didn't take their parental rights away. The hospital asked the Court to decide what was in the child's best interests. The court ruled against the parents.

The NHS - more specifically, the medical professionals (actual human beings) who instigated proceedings - were not interested in "controlling the treatment". They were interested in acting in the best interests of the child. The court agreed.

What's more I explained that the NHS does pay for treatments elsewhere when medical professionals request them. In other words, they are more than happy to pass over control in the interest of their patients.

 

#2 is a nice idea but Canada's not going to go for that. Why should they use their bargaining power to benefit the US? And why would drug companies give them all the extra quantities required at that discounted price, knowing that by doing so they'll be losing high-price sales in the US?

 

are you saying our politicians should do whats best for the drug companies and NOT the american people?

 

You still aren't adhering to the actual definition of socialism.

The government does not control the fire department et al. It is funded via tax dollars OR donations, the government does not run the fire department. The government does not decide who receives the services.

Do you understand the difference?

 

They have paid for treatments... until they didn't want the parents to go outside of the NHS. Exactly how do you explain their threat to exclude them for future services if it wasn't a high-handed tactic to demand compliance? How, exactly, would that have been beneficial to the care of the child?

So they subrogated the parental rights (for the lack of a better word). How was that even possible for the hospital to do this, if the treatment recommend was not at the the hospitals expense, nor the NHS expense? It would not 'harm' the child. At worse, it would fail to help.

Our current system is pretty bad as it is, but you put a self serving group in complete and total control, and you will end up with a one payer with the ability to deny you service, and prevent you from seeking it elsewhere.

 

No! Where did you get that idea?

I'm saying that what govt wants govt can't necessarily have. That is, our politicians can't dictate what Canada does with it's own drug supply. And, that drug companies aren't going to be too keen to play along either. In stating their reasons why not, I'm merely stating their likely thinking - not saying that I sympathize with drug companies. Not. At. All.

Big Pharma's done a grand job of convincing people they have to charge so much more in the US to make up for low prices everywhere else. On analysis it's total bunkum. Pharmaceuticals are among, if not the, most profitable sector, everywhere. They charge more in the US because they can.

 

i dont think they will give up their massive Medicare and Medicaid contracts just cause they sell meds for less.

 

I don't oppose insurance of any kind. I DO oppose making others pay your way.

1.- The cost of medical school probably is the least of the contributors to high med costs. I want excellent training.
2.- Cost of drugs is crazy as hell. Unrealistic. I buy my own prescription drugs from the international market, where the identical product, sometimes identical brand- cost 80% less. Think- Why.
3.- Medicare is not a free plan. I'm 79. Between medicare (about $500 a month deducts from my social security for it) and the supplemental policy I buy to provide complete coverage-
monthly cost is more than $700, for ONE person. My wife has similar expenses. It's not a social service, or a welfare function.
IF a person wasn't vested in social security adequately, the money wouldn't be there to fund if early.
4.- Same as above. What you have paid in controls what you can get back, so reducing the entry age is like dropping 10 years (probably the highest paying years) from your savings.
5.- Medicaid is already a plan for people with limited income or resources. Costs vary with income/resources. Run by states, so varies widely. Some people are qualified for both medicare and medicaid.

I think you missed the really big contributor to the problem- and that is tort litigation. There is a constant threat to every kind of medically related function, of some ambulance chaser suing them for anything. This results in insurance companies requiring mountains of records and paperwork, a substantial amount of defensive medicine being used unnecessarily, and huge insurance premiums applying to hospitals, doctors, nurses, clinics, pharmaceutical companies- everyone related to the medical industry. It's become a gold-mine for lawyers- and it's not the pursuit of justice, but of money, and ruthlessly. They dominate the TV ads, trolling for people who like to hear how they may be entitled to money.

The cost of malpractice insurance for an OB-Gyn doctor for example can be $200,000 a year. If that Doctor delivers two babies a week, he has to build $2000 into the fee for each delivery, just for the insurance premium. That cost goes into his bill, which goes to the patient insurance company, which puts it into the premium the patient pays. So when the tort lawyer sues the medical industry- he's actually suing and collecting from the patients...... And of course, he's keeping half the money he collects for himself.

We need a major overhaul of the way tort laws apply to healthcare.

 

The doctors couldn't care less if they went outside the NHS. Why would they? The NHS would pay for treatment outside the NHS.

I don't have to explain it because it isn't true - they did NOT threaten to exclude them from future services.

Because it was not in the best interests of the child. The courts ruled it "unkind and inhumane". Almost all his brain was destroyed - it was mostly water and fluid.

The medical professionals who cared for the child are not self-serving, nor interested in control - that's just a self-serving flight of fancy. They are medical professionals like anywhere else - human beings dedicating their lives to helping others.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly. I'm saying that if we could import drugs at a lower cost from Canada, Canada would have to buy more drugs to meet that demand. If drug companies gave them a discount on those extra drugs -drugs destined for the US - then they would be helping people in the US avoid paying the full-price in the US. Or in other words, shooting themselves in the foot.

As well as Medicare and Medicaid, countless regular customers would be getting a cheap deal too. I'm just guessing they would rather not help facilitate anything that cuts into their profits, massive though they are. Maybe someone would have to take a $5 million bonus instead of a $6 million bonus, and then there's shareholders to think about.

Or is that clear as mud lol.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case

 

Yes, I'm familiar with that case too. Pretty much the same story. A couple of differences though:

Firstly, that Charlie's doctors had arranged for NHS-paid treatment in the US, but his condition deteriorated and even the US doctor determined that it would be pointless. Secondly, unlike, Alfie Evans, there was a chance, albeit it very small, that he could feel pain, contributing to the ruling that it was similarly inhumane to continue on life support.

 

Republicans will probably try to pass a replacement law that includes pre-existing conditions like their 2017 plan did.

 

it has to do much more than just mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions.

it has to ban monthly, yearly, and lifetime benefits.

it has to ban discrimination based on obesity, pregnancy, being a smoker, being an athlete.

all plans must coverage mental health, drug addiction, prescription drugs, emergency treatment, hospitalization, pediatrics, rehab, and lab services.


otherwise, the plans are GARBAGE.

we cannot go back the days of people going bankrupt cause their health insurance doesnt cover a basic medical need, like going to the hospital or rehab or drug treatment.

 

Can you show me where in the Constitution such a scheme is authorized?

 

Yea on the back, waiting to be written.

 

No.

Just NO!!

I am sick and tired of being forced, ultimately at gunpoint, to pay for everybody else's damn bills. Every year, I spend multiple of hundreds of dollars to educate children I don't have. And I got lucky, a confluence of circumstances that couldn't have been planned, were unpredictable, and was mostly just plain old lucky timing, I got into my house when it had an extremely distressed value, was physically distressed and in need of a lot of upgrades and repairs, and financially distressed because it was a foreclosure sale from a government agency who just wanted the property off their hands and didn't bother trying to find other potential buyers.

Which is a long winded way of saying I don't pay as much as similarly situated neighbors. If I were then I'd be contributing multiple THOUSANDS a year to educate OPKs, as will any future buyers of my house. No more. They can pay their own bills, thank you very much. In fact, primary residences should have allodial titles, and not be subject to taxes AT ALL. Otherwise, you never actually own the house that you theoretically own, were in not for that annual rent payment called property taxes, and due to the actual owner.

And the same thing applies to and of this single payer healthcare nonsense talk. Now, insurance is a good thing. It's a way for individuals to pool and share risk, and to spend a small amount (premiums) in order to have their losses covered if a possible, but unlikely, event occurs, like say your house burning down, getting into a car accident, or having a medical crisis. But the thing about good insurance is that it's voluntary, and it charges reasonable and customary premiums based on your circumstances, not your income and/or net worth. "Insurance" that doesn't meet these simple requirements is more accurately called wealth redistribution schemes.

So what do you say that I'll pay my bills, you pay yours, and we'll expect that guy at the end of the block to pick up his own tab, too? That doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

 

Precisely! Now maybe we're getting somewhere, some of the wisest things I've ever seen you type.

 

Still undermining parental rights. Still the government making a decision that IMO, is wholly the parents choice, and my understanding was that if they had let him seek the treatment the first time they wanted to, there would have been a chance. Doctors holding them back ended that window of opportunity.

Not a place I ever want to be, nor would wish on anyone.

 

yup, thats what i thought.

 

general welfare clause

just like Medicare

 

The government wasn't involved at all. Only medical professionals and the court.

As I said, the doctors were good to go on the treatment in the US front, even though there was no hope of recovery - only that it might stop or slow things - but unfortunately Charlie suffered seizures and brain damage that meant it would be totally futile, and it was at that point - after the fact - that things ended up in court, because due to his possible capacity to feel pain it was inhumane to keep him on life support.

I deeply sympathize with the parents but I also understand that any parent is going to cling on to the teeniest tiniest shred of hope even in the face of facts and reason, because that's what parents do. And that's a good thing, but not when it is causing needless pain and suffering.