This is for US folks.

Also, how important is health care in your choice of dem candidates? Where does it rank in priorities of what they stand for?

Do you think we should move to M4A? if so, do you think it should be done in phases? how concrete should these phases be?

if you're not for M4A but not satisfied what do you think should be done for health care?

Poll question: How satisfied are you with your employer health coverage?

Poll result (21 votes) Very, wouldn't want to change it. (10 votes) Vote Somewhat - Premium is too expensive but coverage is good. (2 votes) Vote Somewhat - Premium is reasonable but coverage is poor. (1 votes) Vote Not all - Premium is too expensive and coverage is poor. (4 votes) Vote Have health coverage not provided by employer. (1 votes) Vote Dont have health coverage. (3 votes) Vote

But it's also made me a lot more afraid of either losing this job or finding a new job, because I'm worried the benefits somewhere else will be worse. That to me is the key with M4A (which I agree with,) I would gladly take it if it meant that I wouldn't have to worry about my health care going away/deteriorating if I took a different job (or if my employer decides to up and switch plans.) Because the instability is the thing that makes American health care so fucked.

i dont have health coverage this year. cancelled it this year. my main gripe is that the coverage sucks. the cost of premiums in my experience is okay. im just not satisfied with out of pocket costs that i get for the premium. at this job and the last one the cost and coverage was about the same. the companies they had handling the health coverage both would claim that each job offered way better coverage than any other job, even their own. i definitely hope thats not the case.

what i definitely agree with you is that the main benefit to M4A is that you dont need to depend on a job for health coverage. you dont need to stick around at a bad job because the health coverage is good.

from what i have seen employers complain about the cost to cover employees as well, that its a limitation to them hiring more employees.

i have a couple of fears (dont know how well founded they are) with M4A. will it give most americans the same quality of coverage theyre used to? more so are these claims of keeping the same dr and such believable? that seems to be something people got burned on before and will be an easy target for it. i have definitely seen claims that coverage would improve in general but there needs to be more backing to it. the second fear is what happens to people employed in the private health industries? a lot of people will lose their job right? i want to say no but it seems logical. i hope someone can prove im wrong on that.

i dont think those two concerns should keep us from moving to M4A but i think it needs to be accounted for and addressed upfront.

regulation though.

>what i definitely agree with you is that the main benefit to
>M4A is that you dont need to depend on a job for health
>coverage. you dont need to stick around at a bad job because
>the health coverage is good.

But the government doesn't "have" to take on the cost of every American's healthcare to do this, does it? A solid public option that's always there if you need it would give people a choice if they don't like the coverage offered through their job too.


>
>from what i have seen employers complain about the cost to
>cover employees as well, that its a limitation to them hiring
>more employees.
>

And this is why I always point out that the vast majority of the private health insurance market is comprised of employer plans. And who is more equipped to bargain with/shop around on the health insurance companies, you or your employer? A corporation can threaten to take their 10,000 employees elsewhere for a better deal, and Aetna or whoever will pay the fuck attention. But the health insurance companies could care less about individuals, as we have seen with how and what they offer folks through the ACA exchanges.


>i have a couple of fears (dont know how well founded they are)
>with M4A. will it give most americans the same quality of
>coverage theyre used to? more so are these claims of keeping
>the same dr and such believable? that seems to be something
>people got burned on before and will be an easy target for it.

And see, this is a perfect area to crack down on with regulation. It should be "illegal" for a doctor to discriminate against patients because of the type of health insurance they have. Both providers and payers need to have several seats on this one. As a patient, wouldn't it make sense that no matter whether you go from Medicaid, to a private plan through work, to a public option... NOTHING changes with whether or how your provider(s) can see you? See they don't like that idea because they are paid/reimbursed at different rates depending on the type of insurance patients have. So this is why many people in the US have coverage under Medicaid but have poor healthcare access, because a doctor can decide they refuse to accept Medicaid, or they only see Medicare patients, etc. It's greedy and a huge source of inefficiency in US healthcare system.

>i have definitely seen claims that coverage would improve in
>general but there needs to be more backing to it. the second
>fear is what happens to people employed in the private health
>industries? a lot of people will lose their job right? i want
>to say no but it seems logical. i hope someone can prove im
>wrong on that.
>

I think there's a lot of proposals floating around about different ways private health insurers could still play a role, even under a single payer system. But, at least to me, the biggest concern is about the costs that are currently covered by the private health sector that would all of the sudden be the taxpayer's responsibility. The only way healthcare coverage and quality could "sustainably" improve under a US single payer system is if prices were driven waay down. But it would be nearly impossible to implement strict price controls across the board (doctors would revolt, the shareholders of all these health and drug companies would revolt, and good luck passing any meaningful legislation to make it happen), as opposed to simply piecing together a competitively-priced public option that provides good coverage and is designed to be affordable for individuals and small businesses that CHOOSE it.

And this would create the right kind of pressure on the private payers too, because if the public option ended up so much better for more folks than their employer plans, employers would start to see employee enrollment on their plans drop which after a while would beg them to ask "why pay all this money to this shitty health insurance company whose plans nobody even wants?" Which would then force the private plans to compete (i.e. better benefits, lower pricing), to attract/keep customers.

a public option is?? there is a medicare for all proposal and a medicare for america proposal. i think pete and beto are pushing the medicare for america proposal that would cover all uninsured and open a medicare option for everyone else. it would not eliminate private or employee plans. the idea is that these private plans would now have something to compete vs. if the medicare option is better for more people than people will go to it. is this a public option?

>A lot of this could be achieved with a robust public option and better
>regulation though.
>
>>what i definitely agree with you is that the main benefit to
>>M4A is that you dont need to depend on a job for health
>>coverage. you dont need to stick around at a bad job because
>>the health coverage is good.
>
>But the government doesn't "have" to take on the cost of every
>American's healthcare to do this, does it? A solid public
>option that's always there if you need it would give people a
>choice if they don't like the coverage offered through their
>job too.

the way im seeing is that the cost is currently being shared by all americans but we have a "choice". the medicare for all would make the cost being shared direct and in theory balance it. we would all have one plan but have the option to buy supplemental coverage right? so we all are still paying but now its through taxes instead of through premiums. deductibles go away? out of pocket costs go away..mostly?

>>
>>from what i have seen employers complain about the cost to
>>cover employees as well, that its a limitation to them
>hiring
>>more employees.
>>
>
>And this is why I always point out that the vast majority of
>the private health insurance market is comprised of employer
>plans. And who is more equipped to bargain with/shop around on
>the health insurance companies, you or your employer? A
>corporation can threaten to take their 10,000 employees
>elsewhere for a better deal, and Aetna or whoever will pay the
>fuck attention. But the health insurance companies could care
>less about individuals, as we have seen with how and what they
>offer folks through the ACA exchanges.

but isnt our current situation proof that this doesnt work? these insurers are in it for profit. they will charge as much as they can get away with. there doesnt seem to be a force driving the prices down. how can that be changed?

>
>
>>i have a couple of fears (dont know how well founded they
>are)
>>with M4A. will it give most americans the same quality of
>>coverage theyre used to? more so are these claims of keeping
>>the same dr and such believable? that seems to be something
>>people got burned on before and will be an easy target for
>it.
>
>And see, this is a perfect area to crack down on with
>regulation. It should be "illegal" for a doctor to
>discriminate against patients because of the type of health
>insurance they have. Both providers and payers need to have
>several seats on this one. As a patient, wouldn't it make
>sense that no matter whether you go from Medicaid, to a
>private plan through work, to a public option... NOTHING
>changes with whether or how your provider(s) can see you? See
>they don't like that idea because they are paid/reimbursed at
>different rates depending on the type of insurance patients
>have. So this is why many people in the US have coverage under
>Medicaid but have poor healthcare access, because a doctor can
>decide they refuse to accept Medicaid, or they only see
>Medicare patients, etc. It's greedy and a huge source of
>inefficiency in US healthcare system.
>
>>i have definitely seen claims that coverage would improve in
>>general but there needs to be more backing to it. the second
>>fear is what happens to people employed in the private
>health
>>industries? a lot of people will lose their job right? i
>want
>>to say no but it seems logical. i hope someone can prove im
>>wrong on that.
>>
>
>I think there's a lot of proposals floating around about
>different ways private health insurers could still play a
>role, even under a single payer system. But, at least to me,
>the biggest concern is about the costs that are currently
>covered by the private health sector that would all of the
>sudden be the taxpayer's responsibility. The only way
>healthcare coverage and quality could "sustainably" improve
>under a US single payer system is if prices were driven waay
>down. But it would be nearly impossible to implement strict
>price controls across the board (doctors would revolt, the
>shareholders of all these health and drug companies would
>revolt, and good luck passing any meaningful legislation to
>make it happen), as opposed to simply piecing together a
>competitively-priced public option that provides good coverage
>and is designed to be affordable for individuals and small
>businesses that CHOOSE it.

what do you mean by the private health sector? is that individuals paying for their coverage? i do think prices would significantly come down under M4A because the pricing right now is such a mystery. it is not easy to find out how much a procedure costs in the next state over and even if there is a state that handles procedures for less your insurance wouldnt cover it potentially. if all provider are being paid by the same company then you cant have outrageously different prices for the same procedures right? i do think your last point is so true, would m4a have any chance of passing currently?

>
>And this would create the right kind of pressure on the
>private payers too, because if the public option ended up so
>much better for more folks than their employer plans,
>employers would start to see employee enrollment on their
>plans drop which after a while would beg them to ask "why pay
>all this money to this shitty health insurance company whose
>plans nobody even wants?" Which would then force the private
>plans to compete (i.e. better benefits, lower pricing), to
>attract/keep customers.
>
>

i think youre saying that the medicare for america proposal would be a better option than m4a right? i am coming around to that idea but i do have concerns that the GOP would force compromises on it that would eliminate its effectiveness.

there are definitely a lot of areas of this that i am ignorant on, more so than the ones i know a little bit about. it really seems something has to be done though.

it's always been fine for me, but I also remember a time when our CEO referenced an employee's "difficult pregnancy" as a reason earnings didn't meet expectations. (yes that happened)


until now, I've very rarely needed it. I picked up my second prescription ever last week.


employer based insurance is just a terrible idea, I shouldn't have to worry that if I get laid off, ok now how am I going to have insurance or pay ridiculous rates if I'm working as a freelancer

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

throw her under the bus like that??



"Get ready....for your blessing....."

at least it wasnt overly blamed on one person but they told us our premiums are going up because we actually used the insurance the past year.

My previous job insurance was shite!!!

We shouldn’t have employee insurance and I get sick of hearing how someone had to wait in an emergency room for 6 hours in Canada.

We had to wait 6 hours in Charlotte on a Friday night and ended up going to another emergency room.

and we had to pay some emergency room bill out of pocket.

when I moved I had to find a new doctor, and not only are they a 20 minute drive away I had to wait for a month and a half for an open appointment just to get a physical

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I would wait 10 hours if I didn’t have to pay shit

thinking about you and your family. Multiply that 10 hours by the nearly 150 million ER visits that occur in the US each year.

The US's backlog issues could easily be fixed by regulation. The key is to stop primary care docs from being able to cherry pick patients based on the type of insurance they have. Because way less patients would be resorting to ER for care that could be taken care of at a nearby clinic.

Any patient should be able to go to any clinic, period. EHRs have been mandatory for years now, there's really no good excuse anymore.

I don't think he was saying everyone should always wait ten hours, or even that he wanted to wait for ten hours

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

lol

>I don't think he was saying everyone should always wait ten
>hours, or even that he wanted to wait for ten hours
>

you should've said so.

"I would" is not the same thing as "this is the most desirable possible outcome at all times"

maybe you speak english as a second language and you didn't get the nuance?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

respectful then kindly stop engaging me, thanks.

>
>"I would" is not the same thing as "this is the most desirable
>possible outcome at all times"
>

I never insinuated he was stating a 10 hour ER wait time is the most ideal outcome of all time, come on. Quite the opposite. He said he'd be willing to wait 10 hours to receive care in an ER, and it's not at all unreasonable to contemplate - based on his comparison - an average Emergency Department Wait Time (an actual metric used in Health Services Research, btw) of that length to illustrate just how poorly that level of service would scale if it was what one could expect in the US. Especially comparing to a country the size of Canada, in which - last I checked - the entire population would have to visit an ER 3x in a year to match the volume of traffic US ERs receive.

acknowledging that fact is not disrespect. I appreciate and applaud your attempts to communicate despite such an obstacle.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

free...so it's all good"



"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Has been the best tool for me, in finding doctors I like, who also accept my insurance.

hoping no one gets sick enough to have to run through that $4000.

I'm out of pocket at just under 1500 a month but its saving us a fuck ton of money.

I'm about to have a pretty major corrective procedure that would 20k out of pocket and it's pretty much paid for once I hit my 500 deductible which is already hit.

I now go to the doctor without a second thought which is funny because my medicine cabinet now looks like something an old man would have but its all for shit i have needed for years.

i think the dem candidate poll isnt showing what the media is talking about but this one seems to line up.

im wondering if the jobs i have had sucked in their coverage or im expecting more than i should?

people that are happy with their current coverage, can you speak on what you like about it?

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

we have to read the fine print carefully during open election season....

Coverage and premiums have literally changed every year for at least the past 6 years. For instance, my wife has had to change birth control several times because they keep switching the types that they'll cover. Rather annoying and it's fcked up because that's ultimately fcking with her hormones.....

Also annoying that as big as the DMV is and as many folks as there are out here with federal insurance plans...the pool of providers is extremely small.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

which is one of the two reasons why I don't go work for myself. And we're not even talking about having access to an FSA.

bc i'm 35+ and still playing recreational sports at a high level and injury prone

im hoping these are just bruised ribs instead of fractured ribs and deciding if i want to bother getting it looked at bc I pretty much stay at the doctors

i do pay more for my inusrance intentionally by having my wife on mine, flex spending, and also bc we have a lot of options at work and this is the most flexible and versatile

i pretty much am accepted everywhere and don't need referrals or anything

administration is a bitch bc even though we have options...our HR is fucking dumb...had my wife listed as a newborn and shit and random lapses in coverage...just a bunch of HR administrative fuckups but that's not the insurance companies fault

are your out of pocket costs low? deductible? do you think your insurance would cover you well if you had major health issues? no fear that the costs would be too much?

no up front costs. you only know a month after your visit how much you have to pay. that's the most shady of shady. i don't even know how that is all legal.

care into their annual budgets?

People already don't go to the doctor's office enough....don't think knowing how expensive it's gonna be would make them go more frequently...


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

how can you budget if you don't know how much something is going to cost?

it would be akin to budgeting car repairs which are far more predictable but also extremely difficult to do before knowing what needs to be repaired

at least they give you estimates i guess but health care is similar...

you pay a copay to be seen but depending on what's next...you know you will likely have to pay for more at the specialist

you even get quotes from a car repair service...

why can't the same happen with healthcare?

mostly bc car insurance pays for far less than health insurance pays for

and most costs are up-front

i know my co-pay, deductibles, urgent care copay, emergency copay all up front

also, bc i'm not a car...car insurance will replace the car if the cost reaches a certain threshold...not so much with human bodies

of the fear of death so they will charge anything knowing you will pay it... makes sense why they can't be upfront with costs...

There would have been NO way for anyone to have know she'd have to stay in the hospital for 7 days (which was a large portion of the cost)...
If we had simply budgeted for a "routine" pregnancy, we'd have been waaaaaaay off.

Don't get me wrong...i'm not defended our effed up health care system as a whole...but there are merits and reasonable reasons behind why presenting up front costs is a huge hurdle to overcome.

Average cost per procedure. per visit.

Along with other metrics like Wait times.

We need to be able to shop around for health services.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

$700+ per month, and I'm covered by my job, all that is just for my wife and my son!

Before obamacare, once you had two additional people on the plan (like me) it was considered a family plan and you could have 8 dependents (like my coworker) and pay the same I paid?!?! He's hurting now aving to used covered california.

I have Kaiser, all labs, xrays etc aren't covered in the $30 office visit.

That's like $10k per year?! Unbelievable.