Colorado health insurers seek 27 percent premium increase in individual market

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Rationed socialized medicine works really well for healthy people.  For those that are sick and need immediate care, the wait times may be a bit more than they can take.

 

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

Well those on a waiting list are non emergency. Their lives are in no danger, the majority of the population only needs primary care and this is where the USA sucks badly.

I have read about people in countries with socialized health care such as the UK dying while on a waiting list of illnesses that could have been easily treated if they were taken care of right away. Bill Is correct. It works well for healthy people but sick people generally get the short end if the stick. 

[yuna628 9,915]

2 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

Well those on a waiting list are non emergency. Their lives are in no danger, the majority of the population only needs primary care and this is where the USA sucks badly.

Who determined that it's a non emergency and that their lives are in no danger? Who gets to say who is suffering while waiting and who is not?

It's one thing to have a donor list, where there may not be enough 'supply' and time for screening to meet demand in serious situations, but quite another to put people on waiting lists that do have conditions that should have relatively prompt medical treatment and that are put off due to 'waiting lists'. People with spinal conditions and those that are elderly often get stuck on waiting lists in the UK - it's their quality of life that doesn't improve doing so, it's they who are told they will have to suffer waiting. Heck, my FiL has been 'waiting' for 10 months just so that he can get the results of a scan on his spine.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Who determined that it's a non emergency and that their lives are in no danger? Who gets to say who is suffering while waiting and who is not?

It's one thing to have a donor list, where there may not be enough 'supply' and time for screening to meet demand in serious situations, but quite another to put people on waiting lists that do have conditions that should have relatively prompt medical treatment and that are put off due to 'waiting lists'. People with spinal conditions and those that are elderly often get stuck on waiting lists in the UK - it's their quality of life that doesn't improve doing so, it's they who are told they will have to suffer waiting. Heck, my FiL has been 'waiting' for 10 months just so that he can get the results of a scan on his spine.

Difference is they will be eventually seen but here in the states unless you have good insurance or are loaded you'll never been seen.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Who determined that it's a non emergency and that their lives are in no danger? Who gets to say who is suffering while waiting and who is not?

It's one thing to have a donor list, where there may not be enough 'supply' and time for screening to meet demand in serious situations, but quite another to put people on waiting lists that do have conditions that should have relatively prompt medical treatment and that are put off due to 'waiting lists'. People with spinal conditions and those that are elderly often get stuck on waiting lists in the UK - it's their quality of life that doesn't improve doing so, it's they who are told they will have to suffer waiting. Heck, my FiL has been 'waiting' for 10 months just so that he can get the results of a scan on his spine.

It's quite simple, go to hospital, be assessed in triage, it's determined whether or not your life is in danger, which determines how quickly you get treatment regardless of whether one is in the US, Canada, or UK.

[yuna628 9,915]

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

Difference is they will be eventually seen but here in the states unless you have good insurance or are loaded you'll never been seen.

Some people on those waiting lists with spinal conditions may be significantly worse off and paralyzed by the time they are seen. What good is being seen 'eventually' when 'eventually' isn't good enough? Insurance has no basis on whether you'll be seen in the US - money does of course. Most persons, unless severely poor, and no clinics available, can afford to likely be seen by a doctor, but not as likely to afford to pay for the treatment that follows.

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

It's quite simple, go to hospital, be assessed in triage, it's determined whether or not your life is in danger, which determines how quickly you get treatment regardless of whether one is in the US, Canada, or UK.

I'm meaning this in terms of the lengthy waiting lists, such as in the UK. People on waiting lists are routinely sold to buck up, enjoy pain, and wait (how long is anyone's guess for some areas you could be waiting a year just to review a test result!), only to discover their condition (after waiting so long) has grown worse. Decisions for these waiting lists don't seem to be made based on the doctor's assessment - but due to lack of resources. With significant cutbacks in the UK, the elderly, and those that are most critically in danger of needing emergency care aren't even able to get to a hospital in their town to be seen to begin with.

[Boiler 48,098]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Some people on those waiting lists with spinal conditions may be significantly worse off and paralyzed by the time they are seen. What good is being seen 'eventually' when 'eventually' isn't good enough? Insurance has no basis on whether you'll be seen in the US - money does of course. Most persons, unless severely poor, and no clinics available, can afford to likely be seen by a doctor, but not as likely to afford to pay for the treatment that follows.

I'm meaning this in terms of the lengthy waiting lists, such as in the UK. People on waiting lists are routinely sold to buck up, enjoy pain, and wait (how long is anyone's guess for some areas you could be waiting a year just to review a test result!), only to discover their condition (after waiting so long) has grown worse. Decisions for these waiting lists don't seem to be made based on the doctor's assessment - but due to lack of resources. With significant cutbacks in the UK, the elderly, and those that are most critically in danger of needing emergency care aren't even able to get to a hospital in their town to be seen to begin with.

We do not have a Doctor in our County, never mind a Hospital.

[jg121783 3,921]

2 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

Difference is they will be eventually seen but here in the states unless you have good insurance or are loaded you'll never been seen.

Not true. There is something called charity care in most hospitals in the US. Many people don't know about it. I actually spoke to a billing person from the hospital my wife is going to recently and was informed about this. I was calling about a payment arrangement because of the high deductable on my insurance and was told they have charity care but only if you don't have insurance.

Furthermore you cannot be denied care because you can't pay. You will be billed later and if you can't pay civil action might be taken but no one is going without essential medical care because they can't pay unless they choose to. 

[jg121783 3,921]

53 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Some people on those waiting lists with spinal conditions may be significantly worse off and paralyzed by the time they are seen. What good is being seen 'eventually' when 'eventually' isn't good enough? Insurance has no basis on whether you'll be seen in the US - money does of course. Most persons, unless severely poor, and no clinics available, can afford to likely be seen by a doctor, but not as likely to afford to pay for the treatment that follows.

I'm meaning this in terms of the lengthy waiting lists, such as in the UK. People on waiting lists are routinely sold to buck up, enjoy pain, and wait (how long is anyone's guess for some areas you could be waiting a year just to review a test result!), only to discover their condition (after waiting so long) has grown worse. Decisions for these waiting lists don't seem to be made based on the doctor's assessment - but due to lack of resources. With significant cutbacks in the UK, the elderly, and those that are most critically in danger of needing emergency care aren't even able to get to a hospital in their town to be seen to begin with.

I have read about people that have brain tumors that are discovered early enough to be surgically removed and they are put on a waiting list. By the time it's their turn it's too late and they are either almost dead or already dead.

[OriZ 3,165]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 

I have read about people in countries with socialized health care such as the UK dying while on a waiting list of illnesses that could have been easily treated if they were taken care of right away. Bill Is correct. It works well for healthy people but sick people generally get the short end if the stick. 

Takes me again back to what I said about it meaning a million different things. I think saying all people in all countries(you didn't say all but you also didn't say some) with socialized care are dying while on waiting lists is far from an accurate statement. It depends on the situation, the system, the country. Hence why I say they need to look at all current plans around the world(in that sense, the US is "fortunate" enough to be the last country in the developed world without any such system) and determine what has worked in those places and what hasn't and come up with something good. Until I see details I reserve judgement. Coming from Israel, I know our system does have its own faults, however waiting lists isn't really one of them. 

 

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Some people on those waiting lists with spinal conditions may be significantly worse off and paralyzed by the time they are seen. What good is being seen 'eventually' when 'eventually' isn't good enough? Insurance has no basis on whether you'll be seen in the US - money does of course. Most persons, unless severely poor, and no clinics available, can afford to likely be seen by a doctor, but not as likely to afford to pay for the treatment that follows.

 

You hit the nail on the head there and I think the part in bold is a great example of a situation where technically your life is not in danger but could be severely compromised if not seen soon enough and nobody seems to care. 

[yuna628 9,915]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

We do not have a Doctor in our County, never mind a Hospital.

Do you have any statistics about the number of deaths in that county that may be due to not being able to be seen by a doctor/hospital fast enough (in a trauma or critical situation)? I often wonder how people in the very remote and rural towns manage that in the UK, and I'm sure it is quite bad in rural areas of the US as well. We have one hospital in our rural county - if you have any major trauma you are unlikely to survive - they have no services to handle it. What doctors are here are pretty terrible, and a few have just been busted for crime. But there are some close-by options - that may not be fast enough though in bad situations.

16 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Not true. There is something called charity care in most hospitals in the US. Many people don't know about it. I actually spoke to a billing person from the hospital my wife is going to recently and was informed about this. I was calling about a payment arrangement because of the high deductable on my insurance and was told they have charity care but only if you don't have insurance.

Furthermore you cannot be denied care because you can't pay. You will be billed later and if you can't pay civil action might be taken but no one is going without essential medical care because they can't pay unless they choose to. 

Public hospitals cannot refuse, but private hospital may do so. That being said I turned up to our local hospital in pretty bad shape once, and with no insurance... they did not refuse me. They treated me and I paid the giant bill off eventually. I have also never been refused at local clinics for not having insurance either.

 

9 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Takes me again back to what I said about it meaning a million different things. I think saying all people in all countries(you didn't say all but you also didn't say some) with socialized care are dying while on waiting lists is far from an accurate statement. It depends on the situation, the system, the country. Hence why I say they need to look at all current plans around the world(in that sense, the US is "fortunate" enough to be the last country in the developed world without any such system) and determine what has worked in those places and what hasn't and come up with something good. Until I see details I reserve judgement. Coming from Israel, I know our system does have its own faults, however waiting lists isn't really one of them. 

 

You hit the nail on the head there and I think the part in bold is a great example of a situation where technically your life is not in danger but could be severely compromised if not seen soon enough and nobody seems to care. 

The truth is waiting lists become a problem reasons like: not enough resources to handle the volume of patients, and I will also assume not enough money to spend on additional resources. The UK is bleeding resources in the form of doctors, nurses, and hospitals at an alarming rate now. In the US I notice we suffer somewhat from a similar issue, though I don't think quite as severe. There are times when I'd simply like to see an actual doctor rather than their PA. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with PAs, but I have had moments in questioning their judgment on some things, where I wonder if a doctor might be more qualified to make certain calls.

[Boiler 48,098]

Well a guy who worked for me was having issues last January, took him to hospital in the next County, this involves going across the Divide, but an emergency route so they usually keep it open, they sent him down to Denver, by the time he got there too late. Think he was late 40's.

[CaliCat 3,957]

15 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Not true. There is something called charity care in most hospitals in the US. Many people don't know about it. I actually spoke to a billing person from the hospital my wife is going to recently and was informed about this. I was calling about a payment arrangement because of the high deductable on my insurance and was told they have charity care but only if you don't have insurance.

Furthermore you cannot be denied care because you can't pay. You will be billed later and if you can't pay civil action might be taken but no one is going without essential medical care because they can't pay unless they choose to. 

 

Brilliant. So why have insurance at all? Let's all drop it and rely on charity care. I don't think charity care is the solution. We need real care, and good care. Health matters should not be left to the kindness of strangers.

 

In addition, who do you suppose picks up the bill for all these charitable cases? Is it any wonder prices are skyrocketing? Those of us who have insurance are paying for all the uninsured, because these "charity" costs are passed on to the operational bottom line of the hospitals.

[jg121783 3,921]

The pro Obamacare pro insurance people like to perpetuate the myth that if you can't pay you will just be left to die. That simply isn't true. Even in the Philippines where my wife is from you usually won't be refused in life of death situations. Only difference is if you can't pay (especially in the Catholic hospitals) they hold you in the hospital as a prisoner until you pay or someone uses property as collateral for a payment plan. This is illegal under Philippines law but the Catholic church in the Philippines can basically do whatever they want. This happened to my wife about 10 years ago when my step son was born and last year to her sister. My point is the situation here isn't as dire as some make it out to be. Worst case if you have no money you will get the treatment you need, be billed for it and if you can't pay or get assistance (which is available for most poor people) have a negative mark on your credit for 7 years. No denial of service in a life or death situation. No being held as a debt prisoner for unpaid medical bills.

[jg121783 3,921]

3 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Brilliant. So why have insurance at all? Let's all drop it and rely on charity care. I don't think charity care is the solution. We need real care, and good care. Health matters should not be left to the kindness of strangers.

 

In addition, who do you suppose picks up the bill for all these charitable cases? Is it any wonder prices are skyrocketing? Those of us who have insurance are paying for all the uninsured, because these "charity" costs are passed on to the operational bottom line of the hospitals.

 

You missed the point entirely here. I was not suggesting that people rely on charity care just because it is there nor was I suggesting it is a good way to run our health care system. I was simply refuting the assertion made by some here that people are simply left to die because they can't pay. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

15 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Not true. There is something called charity care in most hospitals in the US. Many people don't know about it. I actually spoke to a billing person from the hospital my wife is going to recently and was informed about this. I was calling about a payment arrangement because of the high deductable on my insurance and was told they have charity care but only if you don't have insurance.

Furthermore you cannot be denied care because you can't pay. You will be billed later and if you can't pay civil action might be taken but no one is going without essential medical care because they can't pay unless they choose to. 

"charity care" sounds like hospitals writing off unpaid debt from poor people's emergency room visits, nothing more.