THIS IS WHAT GLOBAL WALL STREET CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA WORKED HARD TO BUILD THESE FEW DECADES---HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE THE PEOPLE GET ANGRY-----
'Global competition is emerging in the health care industry. Wealthy patients from developing countries have long traveled to developed countries for high quality medical care. Now, a growing number of less-affluent patients from developed countries are traveling to regions once characterized as “third world.” '
As Hollywood was taken more and more to propaganda for global Wall Street we see films like
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel Trailer Official [HD]
http://bit.ly/clevvermovies - Click to Subscribe! http://Facebook.com/ClevverMovies - Become a Fan! http://Twitter.com/ClevverMovies - Follow Us! The Best Ex...
When Obama and Clinton neo-liberals established those national medical commissions to write health policy that would be EVIDENCE-BASED and efficient handling of our national health care this is what they think is AFFORDABLE. This is far-right wing economics because it is geared towards making the rich extremely richer while 99% of citizens are made extremely poor with no benefits of citizenship. Those several decades of paying PAYROLL TAXES into our health and retirement SAVINGS PLANS Social Security and Medicare with War on Poverty funds for Medicaid all spent building health structure for public health now being handed over to global Wall Street for profiteering only.
PERHAPS YOU WANT THAT HEALTH PROCEDURE IN ECUADOR RATHER THAN THAILAND----QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR THE 99% OVERSEAS---NOT IN US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---LIKE BALTIMORE.
It would be far cheaper to export that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pol and player and rebuild our strong, developed nation public health system for all. Of course all this has a dual outcome-----to push as many US citizens to becoming EX-PATS as possible----getting rid of all people having a concept of what living in a first world as citizens with rights and strong quality of life
Expats Enjoy Low-Cost, High-Quality Healthcare In Ecuador
By Wendy DeChambeau, InternationalLiving.com
This article comes to us courtesy of InternationalLiving.com, the world’s leading authority on how to live, work, invest, travel, and retire better overseas.
Each morning Tennessee natives Bobby and Becca Vines are greeted by views of two stunning volcanoes. Small-town life in Cotacachi, Ecuador, is never dull, and the couple spends their days viewing international films, enjoying live music, and visiting with the locals.
Bobby and Becca spent much of their lives devoted to educating Tennessee schoolchildren. But as retirement neared, the couple knew their teachers’ pensions wouldn’t be enough to allow them to continue living comfortably just outside Nashville.
“We considered various U.S. locales, but we also decided to broaden our search to other countries. We read about Ecuador and started poking around the Internet. Then we thought, ‘Let’s see if we can do this,’” says Bobby. “We were in the midst of planning an exploratory trip when we received news that Becca’s brother and his wife, who are missionaries, were being transferred from Bolivia to Ecuador’s capital city of Quito,” says Bobby. “It was really serendipitous,” Becca says. Their initial exploration also became a small family reunion, and it didn’t take the two long to realize that Ecuador—and, more specifically, Cotacachi—was the place for them.
“Cotacachi is just so friendly it will spoil you,” says Bobby. “I never think about the temperature anymore,” he adds. “This mountain climate suits me fine, where the nights are cool and the days are pleasant, whether cloudy or sunny. If I want to go for a run, I don’t have to do it before sunrise to avoid heatstroke.”
The couple arrived in Ecuador in September 2013 and rented a comfortable three-bedroom, chalet-style house, giving them extra room for guests and a music studio for Bobby. Their landlord’s garden in the back yard overflows with veggies, fruits, and herbs, and the pair are often on the receiving end of the surplus. Their total housing cost, including utilities and Internet, comes in at just $575 a month. “The low cost of living meant that, not only could we live well, but we could even retire early,” says Becca.
The Vines are an active pair, and soon after arrival their thoughts turned toward seeing more of their new country. “We bought mountain bikes, we love hiking, and we really wanted to get out and explore,” Becca says. Shortly after arriving, they took a trip to the Amazonian town of Tena, where Becca broke her leg. “It was night, it was dark, and I just stepped in a hole,” she explains.
“We went to the hospital in Tena, where staff X-rayed Becca’s leg and explained what needed to be done,” says Bobby. “Realizing that she would need surgery, we opted to transfer to a private clinic in Quito the next morning. When we asked how much we had to pay for care at the public hospital in Tena, we were told there was no charge.
All services — including X-rays, doctor’s care, pain medication, and an overnight stay — were free,” says Bobby. (Public health care in Ecuador is basic. It is, however, available free of charge to everyone in the country, whether you are a citizen, resident, or simply a tourist passing through.)
When they reached Clínica Pasteur in Quito, they were delighted at the level of service. “My nephew is an orthopedic surgeon in the U.S. and everything they were doing here was exactly what he would have done. We were sending X-rays to him on the phone.” In addition, “She had a private room, everything was clean, the nurses were very attentive, and her doctors would come in a couple of times a day to see her,” says Bobby.
“It was way more attention than you would get in the States,” says Becca. “Except they would just leave you alone at night to sleep,” she laughs. “The whole point is that every bit of it was a good experience!”
“We went back in two months and they took some of the hardware out of her leg, so that was another small surgery,” Bobby says. Becca was also given orders for daily physical therapy in Cotacachi. As luck would have it, the therapy center is right around the corner from their house, and the charges for her therapy run a mere $2 per day.
Because Becca’s accident occurred before she obtained her Ecuadorian residence visa, she wasn’t yet eligible for Ecuadorian health insurance. So her U.S. insurance paid for the medical bills. (With her new Ecuadorian insurance, the hospital bill would have been paid in full, with no co-pay.)
Even so, the Vines were surprised to learn that the total cost of both surgeries, plus many follow-up appointments, amounted to less than $7,000. “It was $90 per night for the hospital stay and the charge for the operating room was $1,500. You just can’t argue with those prices,” Bobby says.
“A couple of months before we left the States, I went to the emergency room when I had a bike wreck,” recalls Becca. “I was there five hours and they did X-rays, gave me some pain medicine, and assured me nothing was broken. Just that little experience cost $4,500. It cost the same amount as my first leg surgery in Ecuador!”
Always ones to look on the bright side, they’ve found the silver lining in Becca’s temporary health setbacks. “There was a blues concert in Quito and we wanted to go to that, but Becca was on crutches and we didn’t know what to expect,” relates Bobby. “There was this long line of people waiting to get in. We stood there waiting, when the people insisted that we go to the front. The lady inside opened the door and we sat down 20 minutes before anyone else was let in.” This special treatment also came in handy while going through the visa process, when they were again instructed to head to the front of the line because of Becca’s need for crutches.
So how does the couple feel about their time in Ecuador? “We’re really happy and we feel really comfortable and good about every decision we’ve made,” says Becca. “Even when I broke my leg and I was lying in the hospital, I thought, ‘I don’t even care that I have a broken leg — I’m so happy to be here!’”
If global labor pool are earning $3-6 a day in these health care settings then charging $2 a day for health therapy is for now doable. What happens when we allow global labor pool in Ecuador and Thailand work for these enslaving wages? If comes to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as global labor fills employment in global Johns Hopkins campus in BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE #2 NORTH AMERICA formerly Baltimore MD USA.
This is why these several years of Obama have seen global labor pool building density through GATEWAY cities like Atlanta, Baltimore, et al. Within a decade or two those global labor pool will be working in these US health facilities as they do in Ecuador and Thailand as will any US workers wanting jobs. Who can afford the health care in Foreign Economic Zones overseas? Not many of citizens in those nations......all these health facilities overseas are depending on US health systems sending WE THE PEOPLE for treatment.
'As luck would have it, the therapy center is right around the corner from their house, and the charges for her therapy run a mere $2 per day'.
Below we see annual salaries for doctors and of course health care staff fall into that range of $400-800 annually. This is the wage scale coming to US Foreign Economic Zones as global labor pool fills our US cities. US citizens want a job? Move to Ecuador and live their quality of life.
'Until 2011, Ecuadorian health professionals earned a salary between USD $855 and USD $1,590. The implementation of diverse public policies allowed physicians in Ecuador to improve their living conditions and aspire a salary between USD $2,034 and USD $2,641, plus all legal benefits, reaching remunerations of up to USD $3,900'.
Just to get an idea of a doctor being paid $4,000 annually thinking about how many hours they work each week----80 hours is not unusual----that ends being $1 an hour for that doctor. These staff are only working for a meal and a bed.
Top 20 in Healthcare: Ecuador’s health system is among the World’s best
April 2, 2014 by lasolas
Ecuador news magazine – Quito, September 9 (Andes).- Ecuador has one of the world’s best health systems; Bloomberg’s database established that the efficiency of Ecuador’s health system is in the 20th slot worldwide, surpassed in South America only by Chile, which is in slot 13.
The changes in Ecuador’s social development during the 2007-2012 period were strong. In 2006 social investment was USD $1,934 million, while the projection for 2013 is nearly USD $7,000 million, primarily earmarked for the health sector.
Data from the Ministry of Public Health (“MSP”) report that in 2006 16 million instances of medical assistance were recorded, while in 2012 there were 38 million instances of medical attention and mortality of minors under one year of age due to diarrhea went from 27.5% in 2007 to 8% in 2011.
Likewise, in terms of accountability of the social sector, the data presented highlighted that currently there are approximately 140 hospitals in the Public Health Network, 22 new hospitals are under construction and 24 are being remodeled. Health planning also includes 950 health centers nationwide, with a standard of 2 beds per thousand (1,000) residents.
In the field of professionalization, the Minister of Health, Carina Vance, has highlighted that nearly 600,000 scholarships were created and 17,000 health professionals received salary improvements. Until March, 2013, the MSP recorded 288 professionals who came back to the country under the plan Ecuador Saludable, Vuelvo por ti (Healthy Ecuador, I Come Back For You). Besides, 2,400 Ecuadorian and foreign physicians who worked around the world signed up for this program.
Until 2011, Ecuadorian health professionals earned a salary between USD $855 and USD $1,590. The implementation of diverse public policies allowed physicians in Ecuador to improve their living conditions and aspire a salary between USD $2,034 and USD $2,641, plus all legal benefits, reaching remunerations of up to USD $3,900.
There is also a remuneration change for nurses, from USD $986 to USD $2,034, plus benefits under the law.
Hospitals in the Public Health Network are equipped with cutting edge technology to deliver services in outpatient modality, specialized and surgical clinics, emergency and triage, hospitalization, intensive care unit, neonatology, diagnostics support services, imaging, and other services such as endoscopy, colonoscopy, bronchoscopy and colposcopy.
Ecuador continues preparing policies that allow further reduction in maternal and infant mortality and eradicate endemic diseases, as well as promote prevention axis in NCDs, such as hypertension, cancer, heart disease and diabetes; improve the attention quality in catastrophic diseases such as HIV- AIDS, and strengthen access to quality health services in terms of sexual and reproductive health.
Bloomberg’s Best and Worst database notes that Ecuador’s health system exceeds in efficiency the systems from Cuba, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru and the United States – the latter country among the last in the ranking.
If we understand the goal of Affordable Care Act is moving 99% of US citizens to GUTTED OF FUNDING MEDICAID FOR ALL-----same as all Foreign Economic Zones overseas then we see where assigning HIGH DEDUCTIBLES AND CO-PAYS regressively will end. As the argument over EXPANDED MEDICAID has Americans fighting just to be in the lowest level of health care plans-----the BRONZE AND SILVER are keeping working class citizens from accessing ordinary care for fear of medical bankruptcy. This dynamic is temporary as MOVING FORWARD to the coming economic crash and extended Depression will take those Americans wanting EXPANDED MEDICAID to qualifying for regular Medicaid and it will take those working class citizens now able to afford a BRONZE OR SILVER to being those same impoverished citizens looking for Medicaid plans. Corporations are already ending their quality health plans for all except high-level executives and bringing that same PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE PLAN to its employees----
THIS IS GUTTED OF FUNDING MEDICAID FOR ALL----what the right wing calls UNIVERSAL/SINGLE-PAYER INSURANCE. Keep in mind----the payroll taxes tripled by REAGAN so our quality public health care would be funded through the 21st century are still sky-high===we are simply not going to access the level of care for which WE THE PEOPLE pre-paid.
LET'S JUST GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND THAT PESKY 5% TO THE 1% SHOW ME THE MONEY PLAYERS!
Critics say high deductibles make insurance ‘unaffordable’
Jim Callaway for The Boston Globe
Roger and Cassaundra Anderson must meet a $7,000 deductible before their insurance payments kick in.
By Tracy Jan Globe Staff November 16, 2015
COLUMBUS, Ohio — When President Obama’s landmark health care law ushered in a slew of new insurance options in 2013, the Andersons could not wait to sign up.
Roger Anderson, 54, a formerly uninsured construction worker, has a bad back and a bad heart. He and his wife are still paying for his earlier heart surgery and feared another crisis could ruin them.
“This law was going to give people a chance,” said Cassaundra Anderson, 44, a freelance proof reader.
But in April, when Roger Anderson fell while hiking and hurt his shoulder, he discovered, to his dismay, that simply being insured was not enough. The Andersons’ mid-tier plan, which costs them $875 a month, requires them to meet a $7,000 deductible before insurance payments kick in.
The Andersons’ experience echoes that of hundreds of thousands of newly insured Americans facing sticker shock over out-of-pocket costs. Although the law survived two Supreme Court challenges, it could still be on the line in the 2016 presidential election, posing a significant political barrier to Democrats in this critical battleground state, which includes both conservative rural sections of Appalachia and diverse cities.
The problem experienced by the Andersons is particularly acute in Ohio, which has the fourth-largest number of people enrolled in high-deductible insurance plans in the country, after Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s trade association based in Washington.
Now that the law’s major provisions are in place, the outcry over cost has prompted Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, to call for changes to Obama’s signature domestic achievement.
“This will be an issue at least one more time in the 2016 election. It could absolutely still hurt Democrats,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. “Polls about the Affordable Care Act have a considerable amount of middle-income people who say either the program has done nothing for them or actually hurt them.”
Governor John Kasich, like other Republicans running for the party’s presidential nomination, blames rising insurance costs on Obama’s 2010 health reform law and has called for its repeal. Clinton defends the Affordable Care Act on the campaign trail but is pledging to lower out-of-pocket costs including deductibles and making affordable health care a “basic human right.” Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, says Obama’s health law does not go far enough and advocates for a “Medicare-for-all” single-payer system instead.
The percentage of Ohioans who view the law unfavorably is higher than in the nation as a whole, especially among independents and Democrats, according to new data from the annual Ohio Health Issues Poll. Nearly half of Ohioans do not like the law, compared with the 42 percent national figure reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation in October.
Nearly 30 percent of people insured through the federal marketplace who had deductibles higher than $1,500 went without needed medical care in 2014 because they could not afford it, according to Families USA, a health care consumer group based in Washington. That includes diagnostic tests, treatments, and follow-up care as well as prescription drugs.
Deductibles have grown six times faster than wages since 2010, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. The growing national problem is also reflected in Massachusetts, where a 2015 annual report by the state’s Center for Health Information and Analysis shows that more than half of those enrolled in individual plans faced high deductibles.
“Unfortunately, what we are headed toward now is universal crappy health insurance,” said Dr. Budd Shenkin, a California pediatrician who wrote the American Academy of Pediatrics policy on high-deductible plans, which he calls nefarious.
“It’s just not a good deal for people,” he said. The academy last year advised the federal government to restrict such plans to adults because they discourage families from seeking necessary primary care for their children.
The Obama administration, in response to the criticism, acknowledges that high deductibles are an “important issue” but says the problem is part of longstanding insurance trends.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services points out that the law, for the first time, caps the out-of-pocket costs families pay to $13,700. It recently introduced an online “cost calculator” that gives those shopping for insurance a fuller picture of their total out-of-pocket costs.
The Affordable Care Act, while providing coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans, does nothing to turn the tide away from high-deductible plans. The government provides subsidies that lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for people with incomes below 250 percent of the federal poverty line, individuals making less than $30,000 a year. More than half of those buying insurance through the marketplace receive subsidies to offset copays and deductibles, according to the administration.
But those with more moderate incomes receive no help. Mandated by the law to buy coverage, they most often opt for high-deductible plans as a way to make their monthly premium payments more manageable. And they end up making medical decisions much like they did when they were uninsured, advocates say — by putting off care.
In fact, the growing use and size of deductibles as a way to lower premiums “threatens to undermine the gains Americans have made in coverage since 2014,” according to a September report by The Commonwealth Fund on the affordability of marketplace plans.
Cost concerns have lead tens of thousands of the newly insured to drop their Affordable Care Act plans and opt for free or discounted care at community health clinics. Consumer advocates worry that the numbers will increase as the trend toward high deductibles worsens.
Cassaundra Anderson has been bombarded by a slew of e-mails reminding her to reenroll when the 2016 sign-up period for marketplace plans begins in November. She is not certain the family will re-up. Their premium next year would jump to more than $1,000 a month.
“We’re in the process of looking at going without insurance,” she said, calculating that the family will be better off financially just paying the $2,000 tax penalty for not abiding by the law’s mandate. “What am I even paying these insurance people for? Why should we reenroll?”
She figures that the amount the couple pays toward their insurance premium could instead go toward paying off her husband’s latest round of medical bills, now tallying $6,700. The mounting debt has Roger Anderson choosing to forgo the twice-weekly physical therapy prescribed by his doctor — and losing muscle mass as a consequence — because he can’t afford the $200-a-month copay. He’s also skipping a follow-up MRI of his back.
Cassaundra Anderson said she still plans on voting for whoever the Democratic nominee for president will be. “Republicans who have fought this law tooth and nail are not going to try to make it better,” she said.
But independent swing voters may not be as forgiving. “If they are having the experience we’re having, they are going to say, ‘This is a lot of doo-doo,’ ” she said.
On a recent afternoon, Laura Torres, a 62-year-old home health aide who is in nursing school, visited a community health clinic tucked into a strip mall 20 minutes from downtown Columbus. This is where she sought care when she was uninsured, paying an affordable sliding scale rate based on her $22,000 yearly income.
Now she visits Whitehall Family Health Center seeking financial — not medical — help. An insurance counselor there helped Torres apply for a government subsidy, lowering her $6,000 deductible to $800. But she says she was better off before having to buy insurance.
“I cannot get anything with this insurance. Nothing,” said Torres, who avoids seeking treatment for her thyroid condition and high blood pressure because of cost. “I just pay my monthly payments, try to take care of myself, go to work, and hope something serious doesn’t happen to me.”
Amete Kahsay, 53, works as a temporary warehouse packer in Columbus. The Affordable Care Act marketplace is her only option for health insurance. She and her husband, an airport shuttle driver, pay $275 a month for a “bronze” plan with a $13,200 deductible.
Shortly after they signed up for insurance last year, her husband rushed her to the emergency room when she experienced dizziness. The visit, which included a CT scan of her brain, cost $1,700. She paid the charge from her savings, then returned to her native Ethiopia, where care is cheaper, to consult a neurologist and seek follow-up care.
“I support Obamacare. Without it, I wouldn’t have any type of insurance. But I’m not sure it’s worth the money,” said Kahsay, a US citizen who is registered as an independent voter. “Now, unless I get very, very sick, like only if it’s life-threatening, I won’t go to the doctor. I just lay down and take a rest.”
Yes, regressive Affordable Care Act deductibles and co-pays are BLUNT INSTRUMENTS killing WE THE PEOPLE'S access to what has through modern history been ORDINARY HEALTH PROCEDURES.
"Then you have to ask how is spending going down: Is it because consumers are acting in a sophisticated manner and shopping for providers and prices and reducing quantities of wasteful care, or are they viewing this as a fairly blunt instrument?"The latter, it turns out'.
ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE Foreign Economic Zone under Trans Pacific Trade Pact brings the global Wall Street concept of TOTALLY FREE MARKET to our US health care system with policies written in TPP that prohibits public subsidy or regulations to stop profiteering so there will be no ABILITY OF MEDICARE/GUTTED OF FUNDING MEDICAID from negotiating lower prices. There is no expectation of curtailing this profiteering. This is what we are shouting about GLOBAL MARKET RATE HEALTH PRICING---only the global rich will be able to pay for these ordinary medical procedures.
Sloan Kettering is that global health system and they know there is no intent to change this. We do not hear this doctor suggest we need to reverse AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND CONSOLIDATED ACOs---------
Our national media spins all these curtailed access as POSITIVE BECAUSE THERE IS NOW FEWER MEDICAL BANKRUPTCIES.
Prohibitive cost of cancer treatments forces difficult choiceJuly 24, 2015, 12:43 AMThe high cost of cancer treatments are leading some doctors to push for fairer prices. Memorial Sloan Kettering Chief of Gastrointestinal Oncology Dr. Leonard Saltz explains the medical cost crisis.
By Aimee Picchi MoneyWatch February 8, 2016, 6:00 AM
The painful rise of high-deductible health insurance
As Americans this year signed up for new health care policies through their employers or the Affordable Care Act, many received an unwelcome tweak: even higher deductibles than in prior years.
Deductibles, or the amount individuals must pay out of pocket before their insurance kicks in, have surged 67 percent since 2010 alone for employer-sponsored health-care plans, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The average individual deductible for a bronze plan through the ACA, meanwhile, tops $5,700 for 2016, according to research from plan-comparison site HealthPocket.
While it's painful for Americans' pocketbooks, the rise in deductibles aren't meant to be punitive. The theory behind the policy is to give consumers more "skin in the game," which would encourage them to become careful health-care shoppers, such as by either comparison shopping or seeking only the care they really require and skipping treatment for minor complaints.
So are Americans responding the way the theory predicts they will? Yes, but with a troubling caveat.
"When consumers have more cost sharing, do they spend less? We're finding yes," said Benjamin Handel, assistant professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. "Then you have to ask how is spending going down: Is it because consumers are acting in a sophisticated manner and shopping for providers and prices and reducing quantities of wasteful care, or are they viewing this as a fairly blunt instrument?"
The latter, it turns out. Consumers tend to respond to higher deductibles by cutting back across the board, regardless of whether the treatments are useful or potentially wasteful, according to a paper from Handel and fellow researchers Jonathan Kolstad and Zarek Brot-Goldberg at Berkeley and Amitabh Chandra at Harvard University, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research
"I got really frustrated," said Mikey Shiwnath, 27, who signed up in 2015 for a health-care plan with an $8,000 deductible after starting his own bookkeeping business. The plan was the cheapest he could find at the time. "I thought that's why you had insurance: you had it, and you didn't have to pay on top of it. I was like, 'Wait, I have to pay up to $8,000 first?'"
Shiwnath said he reacted by skipping doctors' visits. Then he took the ultimate decision in reducing health-care insurance costs: he canceled his coverage last summer. He said although he would face a tax penalty for going without coverage, it made more financial sense for him. He spent the remainder of 2015 stressed about getting injured.
"I was worried about getting hurt and leveled off on my skateboarding and going snowboarding and the wild things I used to do," he said, adding that he's once again insured, after finding a plan with a lower deductible -- $6,000 -- and smaller premiums and co-pays. "It was nerve-wracking."
Shiwnath's experience may not be all that uncommon. Handel, Kolstad and their co-authors tracked what they called a "natural experiment": a large employer that was transitioning from a generous health-care plan to one with a high deductible. They found that while consumers cut back their spending by as much as 15 percent, those reductions came from indiscriminately paring back valuable care, such as preventive services, and what might be more wasteful spending, such as imaging services.
"The assumption in economics is that consumers are informed, and in the version where consumers are informed it's not a bad idea," said Kolstad. "You think that consumers won't shop if they are covered for every single dollar and every single test."
When it comes to health care, however, consumers tend to lack information, often through no fault of their own. The health-care marketplace is notoriously opaque, offering little hope for even savvy consumers to shop around for the cheapest place to, say, get a colonoscopy or a blood test. Many treatment decisions are made at stressful times, when patients aren't able to bargain or shop around, such as if a consumer is suffering from appendicitis and requires emergency surgery.
Many workers, fearful of incurring high out-of-pocket costs, respond to the "spot" price, or the up-front cost, rather than considering what they are likely to spend throughout the year and whether they'll meet the deductible. That held true even for sicker people, whose higher levels of spending should have caused them to exceed the deductible. Rationally, those sick employees shouldn't have cut back, because it would gain them neither financial nor health benefits.
"We think of consumers as forward-thinking people," Kolstad said. A sick person, he said, should think, "I'll spend $7,000 for sure, so I should act like my price is $0."
High-deductible plans, then, may have the unintended consequence of dissuading consumers from seeking care that they need, on top of services that might be less important. The question is whether that might lead to worse health outcomes for Americans. Kolstad said that since their paper tracked employees over a two-year period, it's too early to say.
"This moved my opinion toward thinking that people are reducing quantities in a haphazard way," Handel added.
'Only three House Democrats who voted against Obamacare in 2010 are in office today as Republicans prepare to repeal the law, and they aren't likely to back the GOP plan to replace it'.
REAL left social Democrats were shouting LOUDLY against Affordable Care Act AKA ObamaCare from the beginning. Leaving current health care policy the same was better than this reform. As this article shows the Democratic pols having the COURAGE OF CONVICTION voting against Affordable Care Act were the ones LOSING THEIR ELECTIONS for goodness sake. This is what has to stop in the Democratic Party------every time we get REAL left Democrats voting for WE THE PEOPLE-----the far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal machine gets rid of them.
Who came out for Affordable Care Act? NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN-----NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE ---NAACP-----INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS-----AARP-----ORGANIZATIONS FOR DISABLED-----ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE LED BY GLOBAL WALL STREET CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ----we have to stop allowing captured 'Wall Street labor and justice organizations' take the voice of 99% of Democratic voters.
ALL THESE ORGANIZATION LEADERS KNEW AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS VERY, VERY, VERY BAD FOR WE THE PEOPLE.
Democrats who voted against Obamacare seven years ago wary of GOP bill
by Susan Ferrechio | Mar 9, 2017, 12:01 AM
Only three House Democrats who voted against Obamacare in 2010 are in office today as Republicans prepare to repeal the law, and they aren't likely to back the GOP plan to replace it.
Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Dan Lipinski of Illinois were among the 34 Democrats who voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
All three have criticized Obamacare, which has resulted in premium spikes, high deductibles and vanishing health insurance markets, but they are not rallying behind the Republican proposal.
"I'm open to a replacement," Lipinski told the Washington Examiner. "But I don't think what the Republicans put forward is a legitimate replacement."
Lipinski said even though he has publicly criticized problems with Obamacare, he has never voted in favor of repeal measures the GOP has brought to the House floor in recent years.
"We can't throw it all out," Lipinski said. "Let's fix it so it works."
Lynch and Peterson have both called for repairing the law, although Peterson last year was the sole Democrat to vote yes on a GOP bill to repeal Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. Peterson told Minnesota Public Radio later that "what we should be doing is working to fix it."
The cost of health insurance has increased in Minnesota under the law to the point where Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton called it "no longer affordable." Enrollments, however, increased by 34 percent this year.
Lynch said he's not likely to vote for the GOP replacement plan because it veers in the opposite direction of creating a public option, which he supports.
"Let's see what they come up with," Lynch told the Examiner.
Lynch acknowledged the current law, "has some major flaws in it," but the law is popular in Massachusetts and experienced record sign-ups this year.
Lynch said there are "five or six" ways to fix Obamacare, including the establishment of a public option. He also backs a provision to remove the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption, which he believes would create competition.
But Republicans have a different plan aimed at boosting competition. They want to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, which they believe will lower costs and increase choices.
Both Lynch and Lipinski said they are especially wary of how the GOP plan would impact Obamacare's Medicaid expansion and subsidizing low-income earners.
They are also worried about the cost of the proposal. The Congressional Budget Office isn't expected to come up with a price tag until next week.
The GOP plan would wind down Medicaid expansion and reform Medicaid by converting it to a block grant system. It would replace subsidies with tax credits.
"They won't tell us how much it will cost and how many people would lose coverage and that is an important question," Lynch said.
Nonetheless, Lynch added, "I'll read the bill."