You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
CNN and FOX got it wrong, initially, but the Affordable Care Act was upheld. I had a real general idea of what it's about, but a redditor posted a nice, easy-to-understand summary. It's a long read, but it's worth it, if you were wondering what this was all about:
Quote:
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the actual document, not the page numbers of the PDF file)
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 747 )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, sec. 2501 )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702 )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2794 )
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 379, sec. 3301 )
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 699, sec. 6402 )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 492, sec. 4202 )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: Home | HealthCare.gov ). ( Citation: Page 36, sec. 1103 )
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 830, sec. 9023 )
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 22, sec. 1101 )
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9003 )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 )
Any new health plans must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2713 )
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( Citation: Page 818, sec. 9015 )
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 145, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )
Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 )
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, sec. 1302 )
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 801, sec. 9005 )
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( Citation: Page 88, sec. 1311 )
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 )
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( Citation: Page 98, sec. 1332 )
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventive care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
It just blows my mind how people are so adamantly opposed to something that improves their overall quality of life. I am just glad PPACA passed/upheld so that American is one step closer to most developed countries and ultimately moves away from profit healthcare.
It just blows my mind how people are so adamantly opposed to something that improves their overall quality of life. I am just glad PPACA passed/upheld so that American is one step closer to most developed countries and ultimately moves away from profit healthcare.
people who can afford or already has good health insurance coverage atm doesn't want an influx of people without health insurance or money to use up the healthcare service and deteriorate its quality..
(Hospital and surgery wait time is so much lower in the US vs Canada is because people who couldn't afford them in the US will just stay home and leave their disease untreated)
The plan will improve the overall quality of life for the currently poor and uninsured, but it will most likely lower the overall healthcare quality for those who are already receiving good health care service
The US is a strange little place. Here's my take on some of the objections.
One: Bigger Gov't/Gov't stepping in on health care decisions
This is a big one for Americans, given their history, and how their country was formed. They don't trust the gov't, and I kind of don't blame them. Their gov't has done some pretty fucked up things. Eight years later, you can be pretty sure that the people responsible are living off book deals and never have to answer for it.
Myself, I'd much rather have health care be responsible to an elected official, that i can vote for, rather than a for-profit corporation. Ok, corporations are people? Well, most of them are assholes.
Two: Cost
This is a big one. I think the ultimate goal is to break the health care system, so that a universal, single pay system is viewed as a solution, not a problem. You really can't say that adding 30 million people to the rolls of the insured, at a subsidized price is going to be cheaper for all. You can't tell me that not a single tax is going to have to be raised to cover that cost. There is a percentage of those people that can afford insurance, but don't have. The rest are going to have to be subsidized.
Three: Americans are very much "I pay my own way" until they need help. All of insurance is about mitigating risk. You pay some, in concert with others so that you don't need to pay all when you need it.
The whole thing really makes you think that we have it lucky in Canada. We can leave employment when needed/desired without risk of health insurance and a lot in the states currently can't.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,677
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
bill maher show this week was discussing this
and fareed zakaria was a guest and spoke of how when Taiwan decided to provide health care they had dozens of phds investigate other countries systems
and they decided that the USA was an example of how Not to do health care and that Canada was the most efficient/cheapest way to implement health care compared to the rest of the world (this was like 15yrs-ish ago)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferra
people who can afford or already has good health insurance coverage atm doesn't want an influx of people without health insurance or money to use up the healthcare service and deteriorate its quality..
(Hospital and surgery wait time is so much lower in the US vs Canada is because people who couldn't afford them in the US will just stay home and leave their disease untreated)
The plan will improve the overall quality of life for the currently poor and uninsured, but it will most likely lower the overall healthcare quality for those who are already receiving good health care service
no it wont because those people have expensive doctors and hospitals/clinics to go to / ones that don't accept "lower" forms of health insurance like medicaid and sure enough those under the Obama plan; not only that some states like Louisiana say they won't be implementing obamacare http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/2...nclick_check=1
Quote:
BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday that Louisiana will not take any steps toward implementing President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court says it is constitutional and Congress has ordered states to implement it.
According to ABC News, Jindal announced Friday on a Republican National Committee conference call that he would take no steps to allow Louisiana residents to participate.
"Come this November, we are going to elect a new President and a new Congress who will repeal and replace Obamacare," Jindal said in a statement released to Louisiana reporters. "That's why we have refused to implement the Obamacare health exchange or the Medicaid expansion."
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
Because everyone considers McDonalds health food right now
No they don't. People know they are eating shitty food when they eat shitty food. They just don't care. Putting "calories" on the menu isn't going to change that.
At least they aren't forcing restrictions though, I guess it could be worse.
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,843
Thanked 563 Times in 229 Posts
Failed 63 Times in 31 Posts
I'm giving this thread some life again. There wasn't a lot of discussion on this topic in the other thread nor this one. I'll look into it some more as I'm unsure what to think at the moment, but can America afford Obamacare? Is the government responsible for any of the costs or is it all going to be paid for in the solutions in the link I provided (didn't mention the government)?
Cars:
02' Lexus IS300 5spd
07' BMW 323iA
05' BMW Z4 5spd
06' BMW 330i 6spd
10' Audi A4 quattro
08' BMW M3 6spd
15' Kawasaki Ninja300
08' Yamaha R6
10' Honda Ridgeline
17' Audi Q5
16' BMW X5D
Bing, government is responsible for all of the costs through the solutions that are listed on that page. Governments don't magically make money from air (well, some do, but that's a debate for another time), so they need some method to pay for it. And where do governments get money? Oh, right. Taxpayers.
Some of the things that really shocked me in there though. They said that a "cheap" insurance plan is about $5,000 per year per person. That's more than $400 a month. That's fucking insane to me. America constantly resists "government interference", but Jesus motherfucking Christ, do they not see what kind of benefits they could get from a single payer system like we use here? Yeah, sure, there's waiting lists but Jesus...healthcare won't bankrupt you.
Also, the fiscal cliff is an important problem right now for the Yanks, and it's something they seriously need to work on solving. That having been said, if they weren't bringing in Obamacare, health insurance costs in the really long run in the states would end up rising ridiculously. People who can't get into a hospital or a doctor when they have problems that are easily treatable will have to go to the hospital when it's an emergency. And even American hospitals have to give emergency medical procedures. As the American population ages, and as the number of people who cannot afford health care increases, it will place more pressure on the hospitals and the insurance companies that support them to charge more simply to deal with the costs of having so many emergency cases. Obamacare will, over time, reduce the costs of healthcare in the US by ensuring that people have sufficient coverage to go see a doctor and get stuff nipped in the bud.
Fiscal cliff, looming. Medical coverage disaster...looming farther and bigger.
Bing, government is responsible for all of the costs through the solutions that are listed on that page. Governments don't magically make money from air (well, some do, but that's a debate for another time), so they need some method to pay for it. And where do governments get money? Oh, right. Taxpayers.
Some of the things that really shocked me in there though. They said that a "cheap" insurance plan is about $5,000 per year per person. That's more than $400 a month. That's fucking insane to me. America constantly resists "government interference", but Jesus motherfucking Christ, do they not see what kind of benefits they could get from a single payer system like we use here? Yeah, sure, there's waiting lists but Jesus...healthcare won't bankrupt you.
Also, the fiscal cliff is an important problem right now for the Yanks, and it's something they seriously need to work on solving. That having been said, if they weren't bringing in Obamacare, health insurance costs in the really long run in the states would end up rising ridiculously. People who can't get into a hospital or a doctor when they have problems that are easily treatable will have to go to the hospital when it's an emergency. And even American hospitals have to give emergency medical procedures. As the American population ages, and as the number of people who cannot afford health care increases, it will place more pressure on the hospitals and the insurance companies that support them to charge more simply to deal with the costs of having so many emergency cases. Obamacare will, over time, reduce the costs of healthcare in the US by ensuring that people have sufficient coverage to go see a doctor and get stuff nipped in the bud.
Fiscal cliff, looming. Medical coverage disaster...looming farther and bigger.
I totally agree with all of this. I think, for the first time, there was a decision made that didn't have immediate results, and was long term planning. That makes it front loaded in cost.
Yes, there is a taxpayer angle that people in the states are pissed about, ie. the subsidized plans for low income. Well shit you people, you are going to either subsidize them in some way through emergency care, or watch them die. Pick one. And if you pick the second one, fuck your country just a little more.
The americans talk about not wanting government involved in their health decisions...so you are ok with a for profit company instead??? Totally reasonable.
I could just sit here and spew on for days about how little I like the US.
It talks about the plight of the 'million dollar patients'; the homeless people whose treatment is so expensive at the emergency room, they are draining the resources of the American private medical care facilities and putting the government on a deeper hook.
Even though I TL;DR spoiler'd a bunch of this article that isn't pertinent just to the dude, it's still kind of long. Sorry.
Quote:
Angelo Solis is a chronic alcoholic in his late 60s who was homeless for many years in Solano County, California. Solis frequently passed out drunk in public, and police brought him to the hospital emergency room. There, doctors often admitted him to treat his multiple chronic health problems and so he could detoxify safely.
Solis would leave the hospital only to return after police found him passed out, again. This happened, repeatedly, for years. Solis' health never improved; it worsened because he slept outside and couldn't properly care for his diabetes or heart disease.
In three years, Solis racked up nearly $1 million in medical charges - paid for by taxpayers.
Solis' case represents the immense health care costs associated with homelessness. Nearly every community has at least one chronically homeless person like him. Some have hundreds.
Spoiler!
Hospital emergency room staffs call these patients frequent fliers. Many have chronic health problems worsened by living outside, in addition to substance abuse problems and untreated mental illness. Because their cases are so complicated they require expensive treatment and extra time from hospital staff.
But despite receiving repeated rounds of intensive and costly treatment, their health rarely improves when they return to the streets. They return to the hospital for more costly treatment again and again. Taxpayers and people with private insurance pay for this fruitless care, as hospitals shift costs onto them.
That's the reason to convince your editor to write about the health care costs of homelessness in your community.
Here is some advice on where to start, who to talk to, and how to organize your time to report this story. I've also included relevant research, an expert list, and tips I wish someone had given me.
Planning
While conceiving the idea to write about the health care costs of the chronically homeless, two aspects of this problem interested me most. First, what happens when a homeless person is hospitalized and has no place to finish recuperating after being discharged? What does the hospital do? Where do they go?
Second, I wanted to quantify the medical costs for one homeless individual. Malcolm Gladwell's piece called "Million-Dollar Murray" in the New Yorker inspired my story on Solis. Focusing on the immense costs of one individual effectively demonstrated the magnitude of the problem.
The work for a project like this can be divided into two broad categories:
1. Finding the people
2. Getting the numbers
Finding people: Plant seeds early and be patient
Finding homeless people to illustrate these scenarios takes time – lots of it. But it is possible.
Start by getting to know the advocates who work with the homeless daily at shelters, the county programs, food banks, etc. While it's important to have a good relationship with the directors of these programs to guarantee good access, the caseworkers on the frontlines are your key to finding people. They know individuals and stories, and if they're good their clients trust them. If the caseworker trusts you, they can be immensely helpful. They are very busy people, however, so call them once a week to kindly remind them of your project.
Hospital social workers can also be great resources, but tend to be more cautious about helping because of HIPAA, the federal patient privacy law. Meet with them and the hospital public relations officials early to explain your project and get their buy-in.
Be patient. It may take several weeks or months before anyone turns up. Several leads may fail. Let go of them if they aren't right. Another will turn up. In the meantime, get informed. If you're like I was – filing a story nearly every day – set aside a one or two hours each week to find relevant studies and interview experts.
Getting the numbers
In addition to the peer-reviewed studies and abstract quotes from experts, you need solid, local data. Keep this in mind while searching for people to write about. You need them to be entirely transparent.
Calculating one homeless patient's health costs
You'll most likely have to get the patient's medical bills, records and other documents from the hospital or health plan (if they are enrolled in one). Relying on the hospital for billing records is tricky because patients can go to more than one hospital.
I lucked out here. Solis qualified for Social Security Disability Income and Medicaid. In Solano County, all Medicaid patients are enrolled in a managed care health plan. That meant all of Solis' medical claims were in one place. Solis signed a waver and the health plan produced his medical charges from 2002 to 2006. He had no charges after 2004, which is when he moved into the motel. Most California counties operate similarly so if you find patient enrolled Medi-Cal or even the county indigent program, it will be easier to get reliable numbers. (That is of course if the bureaucracy will help you.)
The following chart shows Solis' medical bills. While it says charges, the numbers indicate what the health plan actually paid. Be sure to differentiate between charges and paid claims or costs. Hospital charges or "sticker prices" do not reflect actual costs or payments.
Calculating costs of frequent users
To demonstrate this was a broader problem, I asked one hospital to calculate the costs of its five most expensive frequent fliers. Admittedly, this was not a very scientific process. We agreed on a process to pick the five patients that satisfied us both. While I sat in the administrator's office, she searched the hospital's databases and looked for patients by how many times they came to the hospital, why they came and how much they cost to treat. She printed out the spreadsheets for me, and I could see that from January to December 2004, five individuals made 117 trips to the emergency room and spent 523 days in the hospital in the course of 64 admissions.
The administrator then worked with the hospital's financial and billing department to estimate the cost of care based on the diagnoses and length of stay to be $1.45 million. Again, be sure to differentiate between costs and charges. Hospital list prices or charges do not reflect the actual cost of treatment.
Spoiler!
Offering solutions
Many homeless advocates and medical experts point to supportive housing as a more cost-effective and humane solution to keeping chronically homeless people out of hospitals. Supportive housing combines affordable housing, case management and access to supportive services. Some programs don't require sobriety, and in response to criticism, they point to studies that show once housed, the addicts' costs to society greatly decrease.
Solis' case was a crude example of supportive housing. Solis lived in a dingy motel and a case manager checked on him regularly. While he didn't stop drinking entirely, he drank much less and didn't return to the hospital for two years after moving into the apartment.
Example of housing first
The San Francisco Public Health Department dedicates $30 million of its $1-billion budget to housing 1,000 chronically homeless frequent fliers. A study by the program by the University of California Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy found that San Francisco's investment in supportive housing decreased hospital use of 235 formerly chronically homeless people by more than 50 percent.
Example of interim care
Another large problem is the high, unnecessary costs associated with homeless people who have no place to recuperate after a hospitalization. They either stay in the hospital longer at the price of at least $1,000 a day, or they return to the streets, where they fail to heal and often return to the hospital with the same problem, sometimes within days.
The Sacramento Salvation Army's Interim Care Program is an example of a program that provides a place for homeless people to stay in the short-term while they recuperate from a hospitalization. Local hospitals helped fund the interim shelter because they realized it would save them money by reducing the extra days homeless people spent in the hospital because they had no other place to go.
Things I wish I had known from the start
Homeless people are hard to keep tabs on. Once you find someone willing to share his or her story, get information right away about their friends, where they live and hang out.
A homeless person may agree to work with you, but may soon ask you for things in return. Be clear about expectations and demands up-front.
Get a photographer involved early in the process, ideally from the first meeting.
Think multimedia from the beginning! Bring your audio recorder to every interview. Practice using the video camera or request a photographer comfortable with video so you can include that Web element. Brainstorm ways to involve the readers in the story through online comments, listing ways people can help and including maps and user-friendly graphics.
Without nagging, keep in close touch with the caseworkers and hospital social workers helping you find patients. Otherwise, they will forget about you.
Don't give yourself or your editors a deadline. You can't determine the timeline for this type of project. It took me seven months to complete.
Research
A landmark study led by Dennis Culhane at the University of Pennsylvania greatly shifted the federal government's philosophy on homelessness. There has been an increasing push to focus on the small number of people who consume the majority of resources. Culhane's study estimated that in 1999, chronically homeless people with several mental illnesses in New York City used about $40,000 per person in public services, such as emergency shelters, police, jail, mental health crisis centers and hospitals.
Health costs of the chronically homeless
Dr. James Dunford led a study in San Diego that followed 529 homeless, chronic alcoholics from 2000 to 2003. The results showed those people were transported by ambulance 2,335 times, amassed 3,318 emergency room visits, and required 652 hospital admissions, resulting in 3,361 inpatient days. Their health care charges totaled $17.7 million.
Now, if there were medical insurance that covered everyone in the states (kind of like there is here), these people wouldn't exist. This kind of problem exists up here too though--don't get me wrong. This is one of many reasons people need to get through their heads that having a drug addict in a home or getting them injecting safely means we are saving millions of dollars, countless hours that doctors and nurses could be using on genuinely ill people, and generally raising the quality of life for everybody. Not just "those damned lazy slobs who wanna take my money and don't put nothin' in the system." Sometimes it's not about what you put in. Sometimes it's about minimizing what others take out.
I work in the Medical Insurance industry, and a main issue we have here that no one is willing to talk about are healthcare costs in relation to medical technology.
Having a Universal Health Care System doesn't fix this problem, eventually the idea of "death panels" (which is a loaded name for it) must exist in some way or another in the future.
What do I mean? There are hospitals throughout Canada and the United States with patients who are taking up beds in ICU's, who really at that point should no longer be there. Intensive Care Units are by far the most expensive area within a hospital to keep a patient, with generally also the lowest amount of beds available.
We now live in a time technology wise where we can keep people alive indefinitely, even if by logical terms, that person shouldn't be kept alive. Often times the decision to cut that person from care lies on the family, which in my opinion shouldn't be the case. The cost of keeping Grandma in the ICU to keep her hooked up for an additional 6 months of life in a coma, is utterly pointless, and EXTREMELY expensive. This is something that occurs in every hospital whether Canada or the US, and is easily one of the biggest pulls on the system in the US. Should someone suffering from serious Cancer who is being kept alive in the hospital by machine, really be kept on said machine only to continue the inevitable? Is this economically feasible?
It's a tricky subject, and as we move forward this technology will only become better and more sophisticated, and at the same time we as a population need to figure out how to take the personal aspect out of deciding who should continue to receive care and those who should not.
My mom had a great quote on that subject; it was in response to an article I'd read in the Georgia Straight. There was a guy who long ago had trained as a vet, but then decided to take the jump and become a doctor. He said that in his career as a doctor, he had seen extreme measure taken to save the lives of some people. Had those people been animals, and he a vet, he would have gone to jail for "allowing them undue harm and suffering".
My mom's response:
Quote:
It's all about how people think about things--and if they think at all. We believe that people are conscious and can think, and that places us above all others, even when we would say that life isn't normally worth living. To put it simply, "We do it for the animals, but we do it to the people."
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
To be honest in the least 7 years I visit the doctor less than 5 times, yet I am paying (well my compnay is) all this time for my health care......... Do I think is a waste of money....
Maybe health insurance should be bill differently say if you use the system less than you pay less upt o 40% off while you use health care more you pay regualr price. It will encourage people to stay more healthy, eat more healthy and reduce cost for the system.
To be honest in the least 7 years I visit the doctor less than 5 times, yet I am paying (well my compnay is) all this time for my health care......... Do I think is a waste of money....
Maybe health insurance should be bill differently say if you use the system less than you pay less upt o 40% off while you use health care more you pay regualr price. It will encourage people to stay more healthy, eat more healthy and reduce cost for the system.
Even healthy people get cancer, though. And if you let people pay a reduced amount but end up with some kind of long-term ailment that requires years of treatment and/or heavy hospitalization...well, what do we do about the drain on the system then?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
