Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Interesting thread. Where did Costa Rica get such a crazy idea as MANDATORY CAJA. Maybe from the countries to their north, CANADA, UNITED STATES. I'm not a Canadian and thus my comments about Canada are speculative.

1)They implemented NATIONAL HEALTH CARE about 25 years ago.

2)They have long delays for appointments of DIAGNOSTICS-TREATMENTS-PROCEEDURES ETC.

During the ARCR RELOCATION SEMINAR they told the story of the National Politician who was given a appointment 6 months out for a diagnostic procedure. When it was completed they informed him he had CANCER and only 3 months to live. The Doctor is reported to have told him "If we had diagnosed this 6 months earlier we may have been able to save your life".

3)Canadians pay some of the highest TAXES (50%) supporting their health system.

4)It was reported some time ago that it took Canada 20 years to recover financially from the implementation of their health care.

5)Even today those of MEANS ($) and politicians can choose to get their Medical Services in the U.S. or Europe.

 

A LOOK AT THE U.S.

In 2010 the OBAMA CARE ACT became law.

What is of note, we were told there was 30 MILLION PEOPLE (of a population of 350 Million) in the U.S. without HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

!) This is not to be confused with MEDICAL CARE. It is the law of the land or at least the individual STATE LAW where no person can be denied medical treatment when required.

2) 30 MILLION PEOPLE . Note they did not say CITIZENS. How many are illegal aliens.

3) It is the law everyone must purchase a INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY. It does not stipulate the rate the INSURANCE COMPANY WILL CHARGE YOU.

4) Failure to comply will result in I.R.S (most feared government agency) actions against you.

5) It drives me crazy to read people's comments "THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR ACA". You should be saying THANK YOU to your SONS & DAUGHTERS WHO ARE PAYING FOR THE COST OF "ACA". Or thank you to the elderly citizens who are paying the cost of ACA. " GOVERMENNT TRANSFERS 1 BILLION DOLLARS FROM MEDICARE TO ACA". That's right, seniors now have a deductible and higher co-pays. According to Brad (Atenas) he and his wife had Colonoscopies 3 years ago. their co-pay was $40. This year it was $400.

6)At age 65 you receive Medicare A and can purchase Part B. This is a point in your life when you have the least amount of resources available to you and this is where they are diverting funds from to pay for ACA. You have paid money your entire working career into this fund and they can take it away at will.

7) This LAW only APPLIES TO THE MIDDLE CLASS AND PEEONS. It's worth noting people and companies exempt. It starts with U.S. CONGRESSMEN & STAFF, U.S. SENATORS & STAFF and companies granted waivers, WALMART, MACDONALDS, ETC.

8) It is reported the cost of the on-line computer system for ACA is currently at $2,000,000,000.00 ($2 BILL). This so 7.5 million people could sign up. That equals 2% of the total population. ALL OF THIS CHAOS for 2%.

9) SO MUCH FOR THE UNITED STSTES CONSTITUTION, when the government can REQUIRE you purchase a product from a INDEPENDENT,FOR PROOFIT, CORPORATION.

10) Apparently the only ones not to suffer under this LAW ARE THE INSUANCE INDUSTRY AND THE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS.

 

IF ONLY 7.5 MILLION HAVE SIGNED UP, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 22.5 MILLION UNINSURED

 

A brief word about politics. I belong to neither party. The DEMOCRATS passed the LAW, and the REPUBLICANS funded the LAW. A POLITICIAN IS A POLITICIAN.

 

Before we criticize Costa Rica maybe we need to look at what we left behind.

 

MORE TO FOLLOW ABOUT OBAMA'S COMMENT - " THE greatest EXPENSE COST TO MEDICARE IS THE FINAL MONTHS OF A SENIOR'S LIFE. Maybe they should go home, take a pill and go to sleep.

Edited by ronofboston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ron, you've bought into several misconceptions about both the U.S. and the Canadian situations.

 

In Canada, patients who need hospital services are often scheduled an a number of hospitals in order to get the first available appointment. So if your doctor gets you on the list at (say) three hospitals, that makes it appear that three times as many people need that care and that the waits are three times as long. Instead, you need to analyze an unduplicated list. That's not to say that sometimes care isn't delayed, but the Canadian picture isn't nearly as bleak is it's sometimes portrayed.

 

Please tell us who says that Canada took twenty years to recover from the national health system that's still operating today. Note that Canada did not suffer the economic meltdown earlier this century that the U.S. did.

 

 

 

In the U.S., the law states that those who present at a hospital in need of medical care must be evaluated and stabilized but nothing more. So if you think, for example, that someone with a fracture who needs surgical reduction will get it for free, you just don't understand. What they'll get is a x-ray, a splint, and the recommendation that they consult their own orthopedic surgeon. Same for the uninsured who need a cardiac stent, cancer care, or whatever definitive care is called for. Evaluate . . . stabilize . . . refer. That's it and nothing more.

 

ObamaCare puts a cap on the profits that insurance companies can make. In fact, they must return about 80% of premiums to customers in the form of care reimbursement. Already, several billion dollars in excess premiums have been returned to policyholders. More's to come.

 

(Interesting aside . . . Whereas ObamaCare requires that commercial insurance companies return 80% of premiums in payments and limits administrative costs to 20%, Medicare and Medicaid operate on administrative costs of 1% to 2% and they pay lower reimbursement rates.)

 

The money "diverted" from Medicare actually hasn't been diverted at all. It's been reallocated within Medicare. In a clumsy attempt to privatize Medicare, Congress came up with "Medicare Advantage" plans which may offer somewhat broader coverage and for which Medicare pays commercial insurance plans much, much higher rates. Medicare Advantage plans are very profitable for insurance companies. What ObamaCare does is reduce the excess payments under the Medicare Advantage plans and allocates those funds to Parts A, B and D (and maybe elsewhere). The effect is to make Medicare buy-in coverage (e.g., Parts B and D) less expensive for those not in a Medicare Advantage plan.

 

Before the implementation of ObamaCare, some fifty million residents of the U.S. were without any medical care coverage whatsoever. And it was estimated that there were some eleven million illegal aliens in the U.S. So we can reasonably state that some 39,000,000 Americans had no health care coverage. ObamaCare sought to remedy that problem and it has done better than expected. If you feel that it's just fine for that many of your fellow citizens to be without health care, I'll agree with you on just one condition. I'll go along as long as we agree that among the thirty-nine million without access to heath care are you and your entire extended family. As long as the shoe is firmly on your foot, I'll go along.

 

Virtually every U.S. state requires that you buy insurance from a private company . . . every one. Just try to register your car or renew your license plates without public liability insurance (bought from a private company). Likewise, private companies impose a virtually identical requirement. Just try to get a mortgage without homeowner's insurance. The point is, indeed, to spread the liability as broadly as possible just as the ObamaCare mandate does. It's a sound public policy first proposed by none other than the Heritage Foundation (that bastion of liberal thinking) and enacted by none other than then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

 

Because the commercial insurance companies now have a much broader base of potential customers, they love ObamaCare. The profit rates are lower but the overall profits are higher. Volume counts. Don't assume; ask 'em.

 

And the hospitals, especially in those States wise enough to have expanded Medicaid enrollment, are pleased because they have far fewer patients who are unable to pay and never will be. Don't assume; ask 'em.

 

If President Obama said that the greatest expense to Medicare comes in the final months of a senior's life, he had it right. That statistic has been available since the 1970s and it's been no secret.

 

If, indeed, he ever said, "Maybe they should go home, take a pill and go to sleep.", please cite the reference. When did he say that? Where? And in what context? Please be very, very specific. If this is something you think you heard somebody say sometime, maybe you should do a little more research.

 

 

Make no mistake. ObamaCare isn't perfect. It won't solve the entire problem. And it's certainly not the approach I would have taken and which I tried to propose to virtually anybody who would listen. That said, it's better than what we didn't have before and it will get better still as more of our fellow citizens are covered. If that means nothing to you, disenroll in whatever covers you now and go without. And take your own family with you. What's good enough for "them" is good enough for you.*

 

 

*The Murray Sincerity Test

Edited by David C. Murray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. David C Murray Reference POST # 48

 

It is at great risk that I call into question some of your comments above:

 

"taking it away from them would be daunting"

Isn't it true that when you turn 65 you are no longer eligible for OBAMA CARE. It is replaced by Medicare.

 

"insurance companies and the hospitals love OBAMA CARE"

Smiling all the way to the bank.

 

"Republicans have not proposed"

Why is it some people want the FEDERAL GOVERMENT to fix everything. Why do they think the Federal Government is competent to fix anything. NO, the Republicans did not propose a LAW that requires all citizens to give their hard eared money to a Insurance Company. Isn't that the backbone of Obama Care.

 

"instituted in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney"

Only a half truth. The MA. Legislator is comprised of 87% Democrats, and thus any attempt at a VETO is fruitless. Massachusetts has long had STATE medical coverage (formally FREE CARE) where the State reimbursed hospitals for care of indigents. The new state law required companies with xx employees to offer their employees health insurance coverage, and provided a state funded subsidized insurance coverage. This backfired on the state where their policy was cheaper than what could be offered by employers. Thousands dropped their Employer coverage to take advantage of the cheaper State funded coverage. Massachusetts now is facing Bankruptcy with the runaway Insurance and medical costs.

 

"the public would not stand for a repeal"

How about we put it to a VOTE. We are a DEMOCRACY are we not.

 

"Medicaid expansion ( paid for entirely by the FEDERAL government)"

I don't have first hand experience, but I am of the impression, based on comments in the news and those of the 22 Governors who have declined the expansion that in fact it (Medicaid expansion) is severely under funded and would result in Bankruptcy for their states.

 

My very best regards

Ron

Edited by ronofboston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, there are many misatated 'facts' in your list above:

2 - Of the 30 million people, (almost 10% of the us population), most young adults of working age, but not making enough to afford private insurance, you ask how many are "illegal aliens". Well, none are because you have to be a citizen or legal resident to apply for insurance under the ACA.

3- Actually, it does stipulate how much can be charged, there are caps and limits. Go to one of the ACA sites and you can look up your rates for the Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc plans. These are capped rates.

David has done a good job of addressing 4-7

8- I dont know where you get the sudden reduction to 7.5 million people. If you mean the number that have currently signed up, it also does not include those that are still signing up, and will be enrolled by the end of the year. So eventually everyone will be covered.

9- I do agree with you here, I think a so-called single payer plan, such a medicare for all, would have been much better. But then there were the insurance company lobbyist dealing on both sides, so we see what happens when money influences the power system, the people suffer as a result.

 

Anyway, it only affects me if I plan to visit the US for more than 3 months a year. At this point I have no plans to do so.

 

Dana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, ObamaCare made revisions to Medicare, so in fact those over 65 and covered by Medicare are affected by ObamaCare.

 

Government exists, in large measure, to address needs and problems which we cannot address as individuals. Imagine using exclusively your own resources to protect your home, evaluate the medications you use, build the operating suite you're likely to need one day, train the surgeon, and pave the streets you drive on. ObamaCare addresses needs which we, as individuals, cannot address entirely on our own.

 

Hark back to the days when you had private health insurance. How much excess profit was included in your premiums? What exclusions were included in your coverage? And where did you turn when coverage was denied? And to address these and many other problems, the Republicans proposed . . . what?

 

Yup, hospitals and insurance companies are smiling all the way to the bank. What's your point?

 

Then-Governor Romney could have vetoed RomneyCare just to make a political statement, but he didn't. Why not? Because until it took on the stench of Democratic support, he understood that it would be good public policy. And it has been. Remember, it came out of the Heritage Foundation.

 

With the federal government paying 95 - 100% of the cost of expanding Medicaid, the states are in little jeopardy of bankruptcy. And even if the federal government did default, Congress could easily change the law. In the meantime, even some Republican governors have recognized what a sweet deal Medicaid expansion is. Imagine that . . . Republicans!

 

And finally, we are, indeed, a democracy, as you rightly point out. But at the federal level, we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, not an absolute one. We have the founding fathers to thank for that. Absent a constitutional amendment, there is no provision for any national referendum on ObamaCare or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the suggestions of some, it would be best to move this debate from

LIVING OR RETIRING IN COSTA RICA - "Here's some Expat problems that need to be fixed"

 

Comments welcomed.

 

 

 

 

=====

MODERATOR NOTE:

 

The topic, "Here's some Expat problems that need to be fixed", HAS NOW BEEN SPLIT as requested and the posts about Obanacare have

been relocated here to this new thread (OBAMACARE DEBATE - PART 2). A redirect link to this topic has been provided in the other topic.

=====

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lived in Texas, We are both in our 50's. I am disabled and need prescription drugs to live easier. Obamacare told us, in order to keep my doctor and be covered for the drugs I need, our premium would be $1150 a month. That is the reason we are seeking residency here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lived in Texas, We are both in our 50's. I am disabled and need prescription drugs to live easier. Obamacare told us, in order to keep my doctor and be covered for the drugs I need, our premium would be $1150 a month. That is the reason we are seeking residency here.

Jeffery, if I may ask, can you give any details as to your coverage before the ACA? Cost? Deductibles? Co-pays?

I was under the impression that the President relented and allowed individuals under certain circumstances to keep their current policies?

 

Just curious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David and Dana,

I totally agree with your responses above, too many people have bought into the incessant and mostly erroneous objections to the ACA.

As you stated, it is by no means a perfect system. No major piece of legislation is perfect as first implemented, and improvements should always be expected (if only we had a Congress that was willing to work for the people instead of working to remain in office by any means necessary).

 

I also totally agree that some form of a single payer system (Medicare for all) would be preferable, and should not have been taken off the table even before negotiations began. I would even take it a step further and argue that the VA system could be rolled into the same single payer system, in a special category requiring no premiums to the veterans, thus eliminating or greatly reducing much duplication of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And were it mine to do, I'd scrap the VA Medical System altogether and give veterans access to the care they need in the civilian medical community. For better or worse, smart or stupid, people generally want to receive their care close to home. Too many veterans must either travel unnecessarily long distances past equally good care, endure long waits while civilian resources are more readily available, or go without. Where's the logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, that's what I was trying to say, just not quite as articulately as you.

 

One single payer system, serving the young, the old, and all in between, resulting in the elimination of the VA health care system and all it's many problems.

 

I'm sorry but I've just never been a believer that our health care system is best served by a for-profit business model. Hasn't always been that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffery, if I may ask, can you give any details as to your coverage before the ACA? Cost? Deductibles? Co-pays?

I was under the impression that the President relented and allowed individuals under certain circumstances to keep their current policies?

 

Just curious...

Ramsey When I was put on LTD by my employer in 2010, I lost coverage provided by them. Cobra wanted over $1500 a month to continue coverage. We have gone without any insurance since that time. My doctor charged me $57 for a visit and I joined studies to get free drugs for my condition. I did not sign up for Obamacare since we have been in Costa Rica since Dec.2013. I go back and see my doctor and he still charges $57 for a visit and I get my drugs here for less than $100 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffery, thanks for the info... Sorry about your disability, I hope that you're at least able to enjoy life here in CR!

 

As we've said earlier, the ACA is by no means a perfect system. Sounds like you were screwed even more before ACA with COBRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Where did Costa Rica get such a crazy idea as MANDATORY CAJA. Maybe from the countries to their north, CANADA, UNITED STATES. I'm not a Canadian and thus my comments about Canada are speculative.

1)They implemented NATIONAL HEALTH CARE about 25 years ago.

2)They have long delays for appointments of DIAGNOSTICS-TREATMENTS-PROCEEDURES ETC.

During the ARCR RELOCATION SEMINAR they told the story of the National Politician who was given a appointment 6 months out for a diagnostic procedure. When it was completed they informed him he had CANCER and only 3 months to live. The Doctor is reported to have told him "If we had diagnosed this 6 months earlier we may have been able to save your life".

3)Canadians pay some of the highest TAXES (50%) supporting their health system.

4)It was reported some time ago that it took Canada 20 years to recover financially from the implementation of their health care.

5)Even today those of MEANS ($) and politicians can choose to get their Medical Services in the U.S. or Europe.

 

 

I'm shocked when I read the broad misconceptions people have about Canada's health care system. The garbage spewed by politicians and lobby groups pollutes what should be a rational argument about something that concerns every human being.

 

1) Canada's health care system was fully implemented by 1972 with parts of the country having started a full 10 years earlier. That's about double your guess, and certainly long enough to prove that it works.

 

2) Long delays for diagnostics is BS. As a cancer survivor i can assure you that if there is a worry about cancer, testing starts within days. My daughter unfortunately also had cancer and received fantastic care. We had the ability to fly her to various cancer clinics around North America and they all said that the care she was receiving in Canada was top notch. At one point she needed some radiation therapy that was not locally available in Canada, and the Canadian health care system paid for it in the US. With 10 times the population there is more money in the US to purchase equipment than we have in Canada.

 

3) Your information about taxes is very outdated. Canada started reducing taxes many years ago, and now the highest marginal tax rate on earnings above $136,000 ( the money you make OVER this amount) is taxed at 29%. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

 

4) Canada had a spending problem during various times since implementing health care, but it was caused by many factors. Trying to pin it on health care is not backed up by any facts. http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

 

Even with its "expensive" health care system, Canada still has one of the best run economies in the world, and retained its AAA credit rating. The fact is that in Canada a much lower percentage of the GDP is spent on health care because it is not driven by profit. It is run to provide health care - that's it. Some day, people in the US will come to the same realization, and try to get profit out of the system.

 

5) Canada is a free country, and banning the right of someone to get health care if they chose to get it elsewhere would not fit in well with its culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.