Health Care

[Cecona]

Aah, yea in those cases definitely should be what is considered best for the child. I think that we could argue that modern medicine is in fact the answer to those prayers. Instead of their god acting directly it acts through others. I remember watching an episode of those show called Untold Stories of the E.R. and it featured this woman whose son was in an accident and if he didn't get proper medical attention he would die but the mother kept insisting that it was against their religion and that only god could heal or something like that. They ended up doing the procedure to save him and afterwards the mother came to the doctor and said that he was god's answer to her prayers.

 

I kind of always had the idea that religion didn't make sense to me and questioned it since my mom started making me go. Though since she was a Sunday school teacher herself I was able to go into the little teacher lounge with her and get one of the giant muffins they had.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Cecona

[Rosedamai]

Also us constitution 1st amendment

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

I see nothing abt medical services.

[Cecona]

Weird how most of the time the 1st amendment is ignored (arresting peaceful protestors, giving certain words such a stigma no one is allowed to use them in polite company even if it's really stupid, adding the word god to a bunch of stuff it shouldn't be just to make people think we aren't commies, and basing almost all laws and decisions on their own religious beliefs) But when it comes to something like this that really has nothing to do with the first amendment suddenly it's the most sacred writing since the dead sea scrolls.

[KageSora]

Weird how most of the time the 1st amendment is ignored (arresting peaceful protestors, giving certain words such a stigma no one is allowed to use them in polite company even if it's really stupid, adding the word god to a bunch of stuff it shouldn't be just to make people think we aren't commies, and basing almost all laws and decisions on their own religious beliefs) But when it comes to something like this that really has nothing to do with the first amendment suddenly it's the most sacred writing since the dead sea scrolls.

It happens a lot. People like to conveniently ignore various things when it suits them, then pull them out and use them as an absolute deciding factor when doing so suits them better. :/

[Kestra15]

What about the children of people with such a faith? A couple could have a child that will die without medical attention, but because of their faith they refuse the help hospitals and modern medicine offer. It's not up to the child even if they may not feel the same way, or too young to understand it.

In the case of children under the age of 16yrs, if the parents make a decision which is felt goes against the best interest of the child the medical team can overrule the parents' decision and go ahead with the treatment.

[Fuzzbucket]

In the case of children under the age of 16yrs, if the parents make a decision which is felt goes against the best interest of the child the medical team can overrule the parents' decision and go ahead with the treatment.

Without a court order ? I thought they had to go through all that now ?

[Cecona]

Without a court order ? I thought they had to go through all that now ?

if it's a life saving decision they don't have the time to go through the long court process. If they did it would be very likely the child dies while waiting. Basically it's listen to your religion and allow your child to die, or let the doctors do what is best and save their life.

[Fuzzbucket]

if it's a life saving decision they don't have the time to go through the long court process. If they did it would be very likely the child dies while waiting. Basically it's listen to your religion and allow your child to die, or let the doctors do what is best and save their life.

I know they don't have time - but they can be forced to anyway, or risk being sued to all get out....

[Cecona]

After saving their child's life only the most heartless of people would sue the doctor.

[Syaoransbear]

Lmao, here's a post from an american on another forum I'm on.

 

"Although, I hear on conservative talk radio all the time that Canadians hate their health care system and that the state of Florida is chock full of Canadians who've flocked down there in order to pay for our medical care.

 

Same with the UK - they all hate the National Health and would give anything to have our system. They all think we're crazy for going forward with Obamacare.

 

This view doesn't reflect my own experience with people from the UK whom I interact with on a regular basis, being that more than half my family now lives in the UK.

 

The "they think we're all crazy" part is accurate but the reason why is completely off."

 

I guess this is what the republicans like to tell everyone to make them think universal health care is a bad idea. Thoughts from any canadians and UKers?

 

As a canadian I've never heard anyone say they hated our health care system. And I've definitely never heard any canadian say they thought the US health care system was better.

[LascielsShadow]

American here, but IME, the actual Canadians I actually know would never ever say they want American-style healthcare. Every single UKer and Canadian I've seen talking about it have basically been like "WTF are you smoking?" at the idea that they "hate" their systems of care and want to change. It's always one American who knows a guy who knows a guy whose sister's best friend died on a waiting list for X thing and thus all Canadians and UKers are desperate to get into America and pay for our kind of care who insists otherwise. There's usually something about "death panels" (with the implied dundunDUNNNN at the end, of course) involved somewhere, too, but then, for certain subset, death panels are everywhere. (Newsflash: we have them. They're called insurance companies.)

 

This is what these people are spreading about places that have universal healthcare. From an actual (American) person talking about it: “This is how the NHS in the UK and the Canadian system works. You have health INSURANCE, yes. But that’s no guarantee of health CARE.”

 

*facepalm*Because to them this (from someone actually IN Canada responding to the guy): "Would I have to wait a bit longer to get an MRI in Canada than in the US? Sure, because in Canada we don’t actually restrict access to the MRI to only the rich people." somehow equals DEATH PANELS! (dundunDUNNNN!) PEOPLE DYING ON WAITING LISTS! OMG THAT ONE GUY MY FRIEND'S FRIEND'S SISTER KNEW WHOSE GRANDMA GOT DENIED SOMETHING BECAUSE SHE WAS TOO OLD!

 

The same dude who thinks you don't get health care also said this:

"the dirty secret is that both the NHS and the Canadian system rations care by fiat. They reduce access by wait times and by deciding what treatments are available. If you look at the statistics about treatment, what you get in Canada or the UK is “free,” but there is a lot that you simply do not get……The NHS and the Canadian system work great if you have minor injuries that don’t require advanced treatment. But that’s the EASY part of health care delivery. Where the NHS and the Canadian system fail is in treating cancer, gerontological issues, and the much harder issues."

 

Because nobody in the US ever has to wait for care, ever. No appointments, no schedules, nothing. Everybody just traipses into an office whenever and immediately receives treatment. Nobody in the US ever dies from having their cancer go untreated due to lack of money, nobody goes without care because they haven't any insurance, and no healthcare is rationed via ability to pay, either.

 

So yes, this is absolutely the they tell people

Edited October 6, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[TikindiDragon]

Uh, yeah. We like to moan and grumble about the NHS (it's quite a popular passtime) but pretty much no one in the UK would want the American system. We *do* think you're all crazy, but in the "What do you mean it's going to cost me money if I need an ambulance?!?" kind of way.

 

That assuming you're talking to someone who even knows about US healthcare, or the political issues surrounding it. There's a load of people in the UK that just *assume* the US has universal healthcare because every other developed country does.

[KageSora]

I've... Never seen somebody from the UK or Canada speak on the issue who actually WANTS our system here in the States.

 

They all think we're bleepin' nuts and sometimes can't even wrap their heads around the concept that you can't afford an ambulance.

 

Just pulled up the website for Big City near where I live.

 

$900 for basic life support. Up to $1200 for advanced. $17.00 per mile for mileage. $25 for oxygen, no matter how much or how little. If you're not a resident, you get an added $100 slapped on.

 

Generally 2-3 miles for the nearest hospital, so that right there is $34-$51 for mileage. If you're going to a trauma center it could be even more if it's not within 2-3 miles.

 

So, let's say it's a 3 mile trip and you need the most advanced life support they can give with oxygen. That, right there, is $1,276 before you even reach the hospital. $1,376 if you're a non-resident.

 

Taking minimum wage in my state... Let's say you work 39.5 hours a week. In a 4-week period, before taxes... You make just enough cover that assuming you're a resident of the city. Of course, that's not taking into account what gets taken out for taxes.

 

So, assuming a two-week pay period, you literally lose 2 paychecks plus some from a third just to cover the ambulance ride. Then, of course, you might not be in fit working condition so you'll have an even smaller payceck as the third in which you'll be using some of it to still cover those costs.

 

That's, of course, assuming you can pay it off over a period of time with zero interest and you can devote literally the entire paycheck to it.

 

So clearly if you have things like bills and rent and food and other payments to make... You're gonna be payin' that off for way longer than just giving up a few entire paychecks.

 

Hopefully you have insurance to cover it! If not...

 

 

(this is obviously not taking into account things like what's full or part time and benefits and stuff)

Edited October 6, 2013 by KageSora

[Daypaw]

American, Medical Biller by trade.

 

I have a pre-existing condition, so I can't afford insurance. I'm sunk if I get, y'know, sick or hurt. I'd have to declare bankruptcy because the medical bills would be impossible to pay, and less important than student loans, rent, food, car payments....

 

There are issues with PPACA, certainly, but I NEED these changes or I will never be able to purchase insurance.

 

However, working on the insurance side of the industry as I do, I can leave this tidbit: We need some serious cleanup of the insurance carriers. There is no excuse for some of the things that they do that screw the physicians out of money and leave patients stuck with the bills.

 

As a quick example- I have billed for many different types of physicians, dietitians among them. Submitting to Anthem BCBS, they would routinely deny nutritional therapy visits because 'assistant surgeons are not allowed.' This was billing with correct MNT codes and diagnoses. When you try to appeal, you get an automated letter just stating that the decision was correct per policy guidelines even if the policy clearly states that MNT is covered for the billed diagnosis. You can appeal until you're blue in the face, and they'll just tell you to suck it because they don't want to do it right.

 

Another massive problem that we have encountered is calling insurance carriers to verify coverage and benefits. You always get some low-level call center peon who has no idea how to read the insurance policies, and they quote you bad information as a result. 'No, you don't need a referral or prior auth!' 'Yeah, that's covered!'

--And, inevitably, a prior auth is needed and they neglect to mention that 'that's covered' only for one very specific diagnosis.

 

And then guess who gets stuck with the bill? The patient, of course. And then when they refuse to pay it or contact the physician about their financial situation, the physician has just rendered their services for free because all we can do is send it to a collections agency after sending several months worth of statements.

 

In a perfect world, reform would include fixes for all the problems caused by the insurance carriers as well. A concern at the office I worked at was that many providers are going to simply retire and that there will be fewer going into the field because of all of the new regulations being imposed every year. Alternatively, we have seen an increasing number of physicians who are self-pay only and refuse to contract with any insurance carriers because it isn't worth the hassle to them. Patients pay up front, or they do not get seen.

 

Did you know that Medicare reduces every payment by 2% if providers don't write enough electronic prescriptions AND report every single one of them on claims sent in? Or that Medigold charges a fee to physicians for the honor of seeing one of their patients? That aside, Medigold pays physicians so poorly to begin with, that the only reasons that nursing homes / hospitals / assisted living facilities accept this insurance is because it is better than having an empty bed.

 

I would love to move to Canada- just North of the border here would be great for me. The entire system here is so awful- it seems designed to confuse people and screw them out of their money on all sides- except the insurance side, of course.

[Kestra15]

Without a court order ? I thought they had to go through all that now ?

Nope. For any child under the age of sixteen the medial profession is bound to provide what is considered the 'best interest' of the child, regardless of the wishes of the parents or the wishes of the child - although having their consent/assent respectively is morally and ethically preferable. The exception is if it can be proven that the child has competency under the guidance of Gillick competency (this also works the other way; a child under the age of 16yrs may choose their own treatment regardless of their parents' wishes by the same competency).

[philpot123]

We aren't qualified to keep our current insurance under the ACA. The best approved alternative raises our deductible from $1,000 to $5,000. I find that a little bit obscene, just personally. Our family skates well below median income. Where before, we were economically secure with an insurance that covered what we needed with a deductible we could manage, now we're stuck with a deductible that I couldn't even cover if I sold my car. Forced debt, yay!