Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll wait. The ACA is the government's Corvair.

The Corvair was in production for 10 years, sold nearly 2,000,000 vehicles, and for a time, was one of the most popular cars sold in the United States. You may be right Doctor, but the ACA could also be a complete failure. We're going to have to wait and see, I guess.

And, it tended to explode. #ralphnadergotoneright

Hello? Explosions was the Pinto. The Corvair had an issue with swing axle so that when you'd take a tight turn at a high speed the rear tire would tuck under the car and the car would roll at high speed. Ironically, by the time Ralph's book came out, that problem was fixed, and it was just typical 1960s era safety problems.

So to carry forward your analogy: The Corvair was very popular but had a serious problem. The problem was fixed, but the brand was damaged and it was killed. That could still happen. ACA is popular but flawed, it gets fixed over the next 3 years and after 2016 a republican admin would kill it.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Quit being so defensive. Freeman brought up religion this time. Not you.

I acknowledge this fact for all to see.

I'm not being defensive. I'm asking why you are quoting my words about the issue (Obamacare, the implications of the case that DF brought up) and responding with comments about religion?

By the way, we used to have a seperate 'Philosophy and Religion' section on the forums. It has not been maintained since the 'new' Redscape. Could the admin / moderators set one back up, and then we can take that sidebar over there and return to the question?

I looked for specifics on minimum standards proposed by Conservatives in the 90s . Can't find them. I suspect they were never detailed...
Which makes the dodge that the Mandate considered in the 90s by conservatives "different" - hairsplitting at best.

In 1992, Heritage proposed a sweeping reform it called the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan. Among the plan’s features:
“Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price.”
As President Bill Clinton began to push for a government-run system in 1993, Republicans introduced bills that included an individual mandate. At the time, Newt Gingrich hailed them:
“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he told “Meet the Press” in 1993. “And I’m prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy, to ensure that everyone as individuals has health insurance.”
That same year, Heritage Foundation health care guru Stuart Butler argued before Congress for “a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family ... To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.”

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/inde ... le_ca.html

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Quit being so defensive. Freeman brought up religion this time. Not you.

I acknowledge this fact for all to see.

I'm not being defensive. I'm asking why you are quoting my words about the issue (Obamacare, the implications of the case that DF brought up) and responding with comments about religion?

By the way, we used to have a seperate 'Philosophy and Religion' section on the forums. It has not been maintained since the 'new' Redscape. Could the admin / moderators set one back up, and then we can take that sidebar over there and return to the question?

If anything, yours was the first post about the entire issue I had seen when getting ready to commenting. As for the Philosophy/Religion forum, I will do that.

Ray Jay wrote:It looks like the technical "glitches" will cause a 6 week delay in the individual mandate. There's a lot of vendor finger pointing going on right now.

Not all mandates are equal. The ACA requires certain minimum standards of coverage that are beyond what the Heritage Foundation recommended. It's one thing to require that a car owner buy collision insurance. It's another to require that their insurance company pays for free oil changes.

What minimum standards did the Heritage Foundation recommend?

Here's a (not 100% accurately transcripted) lecture from 1989 when it was mooted by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

It refers to a 'monograph', A National Health System for America. (not sure why he calls it a monograph, as it is in fact a series of chapters each written by one of four authors, with an introduction co-written by Butler and Edmund Haislmair)

I've read through it. Other than using the word 'basic', it does not specify what the mandate should require to be covered. It doesn't say what kind of financial limits should apply: "The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal healthcare system in America" (page 51)

So where did you get your information, RJ, and can you point us to it?

rickyp wrote:I looked for specifics on minimum standards proposed by Conservatives in the 90s . Can't find them. I suspect they were never detailed...
Which makes the dodge that the Mandate considered in the 90s by conservatives "different" - hairsplitting at best.

In 1992, Heritage proposed a sweeping reform it called the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan. Among the plan’s features:
“Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price.”
As President Bill Clinton began to push for a government-run system in 1993, Republicans introduced bills that included an individual mandate. At the time, Newt Gingrich hailed them:
“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he told “Meet the Press” in 1993. “And I’m prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy, to ensure that everyone as individuals has health insurance.”
That same year, Heritage Foundation health care guru Stuart Butler argued before Congress for “a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family ... To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.”

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/inde ... le_ca.html

It's probably more than hair splitting because there are some mandates that many conservatives don't support (birth control, substance abuse, mental health). That being said, I do agree with your basic point that some conservatives supported minimums. In addition, conservatives should have been aware that any legislation that has minimum standards is likely to have those minimums increase over time, and that's something that the HF should have known about when they proposed this.

How do the U.S. minimums for insurance compare with what is covered by the government in Canada and the U.K.? I know that in some cases our minimum requirements are higher (e.g. mammography frequency).

(cross posted with Danivon ... I do concede the point)

How do the U.S. minimums for insurance compare with what is covered by the government in Canada and the U.K.?

In Canada the medicare coverage changes a little by Province. Some provinces also charge an insurance premium where others fund it completely from the general taxation.
Be that as it may, in Ontario the only things people pay for are prescription pharmeceuticals not provided in hospital, and most dental. Well, also stuff like television rental in the hospital and crutches....
But as long as a medical procedure or treatment is listed and approved the expense is paid in province and across Canada. Hospital, doctor, clinic , doesn't matter... I got my flu shot at the supermarket pharmacy, whilst buying yogurt. .Just needed the health card.
Foreign expenses are covered only at the same rate as the listed price in Canada, which works out well except in the US. So most people going south supplement with travel insurance.
On basic coverage, There's no maximums. And no co-pays. And these days not much in the way of waiting that there was 3 or 4 years ago...except maybe for finding a family physician. Too many specialists and not enough family practitioners in some communities.
Drug plans and dental plans are just as varied as you have in the US. Although drugs themselves are usually about half the price. Private plans like mine have co-pays, limits and exclusions. Businesses that offer benefits packages often cover drugs and dental 100% ...
Remember Ray, that even with this Canada only has about 11 % of GDP going to health care. Not 17% .... So its not about cost...

rickyp wrote:

How do the U.S. minimums for insurance compare with what is covered by the government in Canada and the U.K.?

In Canada the medicare coverage changes a little by Province. Some provinces also charge an insurance premium where others fund it completely from the general taxation.
Be that as it may, in Ontario the only things people pay for are prescription pharmeceuticals not provided in hospital, and most dental. Well, also stuff like television rental in the hospital and crutches....
But as long as a medical procedure or treatment is listed and approved the expense is paid in province and across Canada. Hospital, doctor, clinic , doesn't matter... I got my flu shot at the supermarket pharmacy, whilst buying yogurt. .Just needed the health card.
Foreign expenses are covered only at the same rate as the listed price in Canada, which works out well except in the US. So most people going south supplement with travel insurance.
On basic coverage, There's no maximums. And no co-pays. And these days not much in the way of waiting that there was 3 or 4 years ago...except maybe for finding a family physician. Too many specialists and not enough family practitioners in some communities.
Drug plans and dental plans are just as varied as you have in the US. Although drugs themselves are usually about half the price. Private plans like mine have co-pays, limits and exclusions. Businesses that offer benefits packages often cover drugs and dental 100% ...
Remember Ray, that even with this Canada only has about 11 % of GDP going to health care. Not 17% .... So its not about cost...

Not exactly my question. What does the government cover as compared to what ACA mandates. In other words, are all women over 40 entitled to a mammogram every year? Is mental health counseling covered? How about birth control?

Brad, it doesn't seem to be possible to create any threads in the new religion forum.

Sassenach wrote:Brad, it doesn't seem to be possible to create any threads in the new religion forum.

Obviously either the nihilists or the Dadaists have hacked the website.

Sassenach wrote:Brad, it doesn't seem to be possible to create any threads in the new religion forum.

Fixed

ray

Not exactly my question. What does the government cover as compared to what ACA mandates. In other words, are all women over 40 entitled to a mammogram every year? Is mental health counseling covered? How about birth control?

Sorry. thought I covered that with "the only things people pay for ...."
There are no restrictions. If your doctor prescribes or orders a test its covered. (Excepting experimental treatments not approved or cosmetic surgery not needed as a result of accident or birth defect....)
And yes that includes birth control.
Because psychiatrists are medical doctors, they are licensed to prescribe medication and provide psychotherapy. Their services are covered by OHIP.

Ray Jay wrote:How do the U.S. minimums for insurance compare with what is covered by the government in Canada and the U.K.? I know that in some cases our minimum requirements are higher (e.g. mammography frequency).

I think there are too man factors to say for sure. You don't need too frequent a mammogram anyway, as it leads to quite a lot of false positives, which create stress and potentially unnecessary surgery.

Ours (UK) is that a woman will be invited every three years over the age of 50, up to the age of 73. However, that does not mean that a woman could not get a scan if she presented with a suspect lump at a younger age or in the interim. Also, if you have a family history then you can get more frequent and/or earlier scans. In that case, the NHS would pick it up.

The ACA seems to allow a scan every year over 40, via Medicare, but I can't see that means an invite (I guess doctors will recommend it, though, if they are getting paid for them).

Interestingly studies show that an annual scan doesn't Mammogram Every 2 Years May Be OK for Older Women

One thing that I am going to guess is that Americans are focusing on mammograms because it's one of the few areas where the US tends to test earlier and more frequently and the ACA is ahead. Let's see where it is with things like prescribed drugs, non-emergency (but not cosmetic) surgery, etc.

RickyP,
What is the background on this? Does the government have the ultimate say according to this case to terminate the life of the patient?

bbauska I'm guessing this specific case is what you are refering to? (your had no link.)
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/09 ... pport.html

First, it has nothing to do with medical insurance. The insurance program didn't sue to be given the right to stop paying his bills. His doctors sued for that right because they felt all they were doing was causing suffering. And his particular hospital is one with the most extreme view.
from the article

The conflicts have hinged on a highly charged Sunnybrook argument that even many in the medical profession find distasteful: that physicians should have the unilateral right to end life-sustaining treatment if they see no medical benefit.
It is not a right typically conferred upon — or publicly demanded — by physicians in Canada.
Had Rasouli ended up in a different Toronto hospital, the likelihood of a Supreme Court legal battle would have been infinitesimal, say medical insiders.
Seven medical professionals at four of Toronto’s other major hospitals all say privately that they would never have taken such an inflexible stand by demanding unilateral decision-making powers.
This is modern medicine’s minefield.
“We have a serious lack of clarity with respect to the legal status of unilateral withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment,” says Jocelyn Downie, a leading health law expert at Dalhousie University and author of Dying Justice.

Just so you know; the result of the Supreme Court decision....the hospital lost. He remains on life support. And all his bills continue to be paid by the Ontario Health Insurance Program.
I wonder if, under many private insurance programs in the US he would have reached his maximum benefits a long time ago and been unplugged for lack of ability to pay???