Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr Instagram
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 26, 2014, 01:45:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 24297
  • Latest: jose1
Stats
  • Total Posts: 650463
  • Total Topics: 49662
  • Online Today: 180
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 2
Guests: 169
Total: 171

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Universal healthcare in US  (Read 17839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,999
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2009, 06:56:29 AM »
Ann's right. We try never to confuse a topic with facts. Retain 100% hyperbole if at all possible.  ;D Rinse wash and repeat.

Offline Forever England

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
"Taxes are what we pay for a civilised society"
« Reply #101 on: August 22, 2009, 06:49:26 PM »
Reading this debate and watching the coverage from the UK has been fascinating and, at times, troubling.

I was diagnosed HIV+ about 8 weeks ago. Having researched this, I'm confident that I'm benefiting from advanced treatment. I've suffered no delay and have been handled with sympathy, respect and dignity.

My local doctor, Accident and Emergency services, NHS Direct (a non-emergency, medical, 24 hour, telephone helpline available to all), the STD clinic that provided my initial test and the specialist HIV clinic where I'm treated have all provided me with outstanding service and support. No one asks me for money when I arrive or sends me a bill after. They just treat me according to my need. I pay tax on my income but if I were unemployed, earning less or earning more, I'd still be treated the same.

It's now 23:30 in the UK and time for me to take my daily dose of Atripla. If I had to pay for this, I believe it'd cost me the equivalent of $50 USD/day ($18,000/year). Thankfully, I don't. Knowing that so many lack what I take for granted is why I'm troubled. Compared to most, I'm spoilt.

The least I am is grateful.

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,887
  • the one and original newt
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #102 on: August 22, 2009, 11:09:48 PM »
let us not forget

a Labour (mildy socialist) government borrowed the money from the US to start the NHS, and boy am I glad

- matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Robert

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,649
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #103 on: August 22, 2009, 11:57:52 PM »
let us not forget

a Labour (mildy socialist) government borrowed the money from the US to start the NHS, and boy am I glad

- matt


the irony.....It just kills me. :-*
..........

Offline bobino

  • Member
  • Posts: 264
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #104 on: August 23, 2009, 01:33:33 AM »
Oh come on, mate! What do facts have to do with the subject at hand?

(Sigh)  I know.  But I'm one of those incorrigible members of what we Americans refer to as the "reality-based community."
Suivons les rivières
Gardons les torrents
Restons en colère
Soyons vigilants

Offline randym431

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,125
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #105 on: August 23, 2009, 06:46:25 AM »
I believe that lady in the town hall was part of the Lyndon LaRouche gang. They always try to link Obama to Hitler. They are a pretty nutty group of nutjobs. I think there also is a link to the John Burch Society and the Lyndon LaRouche followers. Both groups believe in some crazy ideas, just enough to be dangerous. If Im not mistaken, their people are also the ones bringing-wearing the guns to Obama healthcare events. These are the people the NRA protects.

There is no reason and no real connection to reform and these crazies coming out of the woodwork.
Its just their chance to take advantage of an opportunity. Obama, a black president and government. Both of which they will not tolerate.
Its not healthcare, its just their chance to wear guns in public, and link Obama to Hitler, in protest of their anti government beliefs. Actually, it goes back to Reagan. Not the 1980's Reagan, but the 1960's Reagan "American Medical Association" spokesman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA

The lady at the town hall, guns in public, the John Burch Society, the Lyndon LaRouche gang and the 1960's Reagan. They are all linked. And dare I say.... many republicans. At least... many republicans, and the Rush Limbaugh's, have found an odd-fellow relationship. The Lyndon LaRouche gang can use the town halls as an outlet, and the republicans welcome the anti Obama policy ranting.
This odd fellow relationship is very dangerous for the republicans to align themselves with.
If it backfires, and it will, that could destroy the republican party as we know it.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 07:12:59 AM by randym431 »

Offline azprince

  • Member
  • Posts: 153
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #106 on: January 05, 2010, 11:23:32 PM »
When will we see it implemented at least the issue of eliminating the pre existing condition clause ?
I have to admit : the good thing is that from now on;  I have no option but to succeed , still its ok to worry :))

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #107 on: January 06, 2010, 01:28:52 AM »
When will we see it implemented at least the issue of eliminating the pre existing condition clause ?

The health care bills from the Senate and the House must be combined for a final bill but what I read of the one in the Senate is that pre-existing conditions exclusions affecting children would be eliminated immediately after the bill passes but for adults it would not take effect until 2014! 

Which is a CROCK. Just another of those ridiculous concessions allowing insurance companies to continue to act unethically for longer.

We'll see what it will be when there is a final bill.

Offline azprince

  • Member
  • Posts: 153
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #108 on: January 06, 2010, 09:32:45 AM »
2014  :-X woww more years to go with worries of treatment interruption ughhhhhhh
But thanks for the clarification
I have to admit : the good thing is that from now on;  I have no option but to succeed , still its ok to worry :))

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #109 on: January 06, 2010, 10:16:22 AM »
2014  :-X woww more years to go with worries of treatment interruption ughhhhhhh
But thanks for the clarification

This was the Senate bill, it could change once they combine and have a final bill.    I'm not sure what the House bill says about pre-existing conditions. There's still hope. ;)

Offline azprince

  • Member
  • Posts: 153
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #110 on: January 06, 2010, 11:11:19 AM »
When r they supposed to combine them, and when they cobine them they would assign a date to make it effective ?

I have to admit : the good thing is that from now on;  I have no option but to succeed , still its ok to worry :))

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #111 on: January 06, 2010, 09:20:41 PM »
The combining process is starting -- when it will end ...

For those interested in exploring the Senate bill, the links from the Democratic policy committee make it easy to look at the bill in various levels of detail.  http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

The health care bills from the Senate and the House must be combined for a final bill but what I read of the one in the Senate is that pre-existing conditions exclusions affecting children would be eliminated immediately after the bill passes but for adults it would not take effect until 2014! 

Which is a CROCK. Just another of those ridiculous concessions allowing insurance companies to continue to act unethically for longer.

We'll see what it will be when there is a final bill.

Note, the Senate bill delays some provisions until the new insurance exchanges are set up (in 2014 under the Senate bill).  But in the meantime there are usually some programs to fill in some or all of the gap.  For adults with preexisting conditions the Senate bill sets up a new temporary program immediately that runs until 2014:

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for people with a preexisting condition. Enacts a temporary insurance program with financial assistance for those who have been uninsured for several months and have a pre-existing condition. Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population. Provides up to $5 billion for this program, which terminates when the American Health Benefit Exchanges are operational in 2014. Also establishes a transition to the Exchanges for eligible individuals.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill05.pdf

And, as a historical comparison, Social Security did not pay benefits immediately on date of enactment either.  In fact, as first enacted (in 1935,) it would have paid its first benefits in 1942.  It was later amended to make its first payments in 1940.  Revenue offsets (e.g. taxes) started in 1937 however. 

A
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline MitchMiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 482
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #112 on: January 07, 2010, 01:28:22 AM »
How vague can they get:

Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population.

What does that mean?  I wondering if they'll ever give us any specifics on premium rates... or if we'll end up with the insurance companies deciding what is and what is not too expensive based on their expected payout.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #113 on: January 07, 2010, 07:08:12 AM »
How vague can they get:

Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population.

What does that mean?  I wondering if they'll ever give us any specifics on premium rates... or if we'll end up with the insurance companies deciding what is and what is not too expensive based on their expected payout.

It means that limits are placed on the design of the insurance policy (the maximum out of pocket payment, no benefit limits, etc.), insurance company profits (minimum percentage of premiums that must be paid as benefits), premium disparities (only age-related variation in premiums) ...

But no, the federal government is not going to specify premium amounts.  This bill reforms the health insurance marketplace; it does not replace the private market with a public plan.  It gets us to a dramatically better place, but not by any means a perfect one.
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #114 on: January 07, 2010, 02:51:54 PM »
Quote
And, as a historical comparison, Social Security did not pay benefits immediately on date of enactment either.  In fact, as first enacted (in 1935,) it would have paid its first benefits in 1942.  It was later amended to make its first payments in 1940.  Revenue offsets (e.g. taxes) started in 1937 however. 
Reason being, to start the SS numbering system. Something that doesn't have to be done today. It's already in existence. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #115 on: January 07, 2010, 03:11:03 PM »
Reason being, to start the SS numbering system. Something that doesn't have to be done today. It's already in existence. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Ummm... the Social Security numbering system was started by 1937, when taxes were collected. 

But even more to the point I was making, major new programs generally have some delay built in because getting something new right takes time.  The specific challenge varies, but it is common for there to be a delay. And it is common for the programs to collect revenue (taxes) before the benefits kick in.  This is not some new, deadly, unheard of left-wing/right-wing plot; it is how the legislative process typically works.

In this case the major new hurdle is the set up of the insurance exchanges which will reflect an enormous change in the rules of the road for insurers.  And since those rules will never be set out in more than outline form by Congress, the details of those rules will have to be set out by federal regulators (who currently do not regulate health insurance; currently health insurance regulation is almost entirely by the states).  Under the due process rules for federal regulations, the new regulators will have to propose rules, accept comments, possibly hold hearings and then publish final rules or re-propose and start the process all over again.  Then the insurers and the exchanges will need to go through all the insurance policies they have and amend them -- states will often still need to sign off on the changes.  This all takes time, lots of it.  A huge advantage of merely extending Medicare to all would have been the timeline savings from not needing to invent new wheels.  But politics is the art of the possible...(sigh)
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2010, 03:19:33 PM »
First application forms were distributed in late November 1936. The numbers were assigned in the local post offices. After Social Security numbers were assigned, the first Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes were collected, beginning in January 1937.

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2010, 03:56:44 PM »
But even more to the point I was making, major new programs generally have some delay built in because getting something new right takes time.  

Some aspects of new legislation take time to implement but declaring that pre-existing conditions no longer apply is not something that would take time to implement. They "compromised" (at least in the Senate, not sure what the House bill says about this) that children are exempt  immediately but adults have to wait until 2014. This was a concession to benefit the insurance companies at the expense of the lives and health of average Americans.

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Universal healthcare in US
« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2010, 05:21:40 PM »
How vague can they get:

Ensures premium rate limits for the newly insured population.

What does that mean?  I wondering if they'll ever give us any specifics on premium rates... or if we'll end up with the insurance companies deciding what is and what is not too expensive based on their expected payout.

My understanding is, regardless of premiums, an individual is only required to spend less than 10% of their income on healthcare, and a family of four making roughly no more than $80,000 a year, or 400% of the poverty level would qualify for subsidies.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.