Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Coverage is a good thing. The Obamacare way of doing it is the most ridiculous pile of rubbish I've ever heard of. No, single-payer just makes too much sense!!!!! We couldn't do THAT????? (wink, wink.) And I suppose it's not The President's fault that we don't have that. He bowed to the reality that there are too many vested interests who would have defeated single-payer. What we ended up with is a screwed up, convoluted fiasco. Not to mention mashed, scrunched and mucked up.
Single payer would be the simplest way and if the option of additional private insurance were added, it would be something to look into. The issue would come back to taxation. A lot of the countries that have socialized medicine have trouble budgeting for it.
I keep wondering if having single payer for major medical would be the better way. I know many just want complete insurance. Major medical or hospital insurance as another way of saying, would take the fear of huge medical bills away. Simple doctor visits could be done via private insurance or paid by cash.
Most here probably will not agree with the above idea, and that's fine. What is needed is a simple plan, unlike the monstrosity we now have.
I wanted to change my insurance plan a couple of weeks ago. Same provider. For some reason, I was stupid enough to think that this would just be a push of a button. "Oh, you want to change your plan, click click, done." I call, they take down all my information and then send me to someone else, who takes down my information and then sends me to someone else (first line sends me to sales, then sends me to another person and then finally, I have be transferred to another person again entirely to apply for the new plan. That person couldn't cancel first plan and I had to call another number. So, about 90 minutes and two aspirins later,done.
The issue to note, however, is that I was probably their favorite caller of the day because I knew what plan I wanted. I can't imagine people who are starting from scratch and they have to sit there and explain all the plans and if someone is new to health insurance (a young person who hasn't had to deal with this, "What's a deductible?")
Another aspect of this whole thing entirely is the recent Express Scripts vs Gilead issue, where you have this company (and there are a few others, but Express is certainly the biggest) that is effectively a gatekeeper keeping costs down and who may go, "Well, that's too expensive."
That is the big issue with biotech drugs. The cost. A course of therapy can easily be five figures and some are higher. It make them focal points to cut costs. Insurance and hospitals both look at these therapies. If they are replacing a cheaper drug then the reason has to be given by the physician. It's like when your doctor writes a rx for a $5 a capsule antibiotic for your strep throat when there is a 25¢ a capsule option available. In the case of biotech drugs it's magnified.
The push to cut costs has been ongoing for years but most of the time it's behind the scenes. These biotech therapies have brought the subject to the forefront.
@JohnChisum: "Most here probably will not agree with the above idea, and that's fine. What is needed is a simple plan, unlike the monstrosity we now have. "
Have no idea what "most here" would prefer, but what you are suggesting is exactly what I'd prefer also.
Daoudi's company, Catchpoint Systems, came across some 50 third-party connections embedded on HealthCare.gov. They work in the background, unseen to most consumers. The AP replicated the results. In one 10-minute visit to HealthCare.gov recently, dozens of websites were accessed behind the scenes. They included Google's data-analytics service, Twitter, Facebook and a host of online advertising providers.
Tax problems with IRS? Probably the lesser of worries.
"Personally, I look at this ... and I don't know what is going on between the government and Facebook, and Google, and Twitter," said Mehdi Daoudi, CEO of Catchpoint Systems. "Why is that there?"
re "Google's data-analytics service", I've noticed for some time that that also shows up when accessing MFO, and I've wondered about that. Maybe one of the MFO tech gurus could gives us an idea what that's all about,
We do use Google data-analytics service on the site to track some basic usage stats. While we could turn on options to track demographic data, we don't. Mostly, we're interested in the number of visitors (approx. 26,000 per month), how long they stay on site (5 minutes on average), and what sort of tech they're using (Chrome browser tops the list, but Safari is creeping up). We also track whether visitors return and what pages they visit and if they find us after clicking a link in our email blast, a link they found on twitter, or a link in a search results page. Partially, we do this so we make sure the site performs well for folks, but mostly it helps us understand how to better serve our audience. We watch what features and stories folks find most interesting, whether they return after a first visit (60% do), and what sort of things they click on (in January, "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne" was a popular click).
We can not identify anyone individually from the data we see, unless someone wants to admit that they're the one and only user accessing the site with the SeaMonkey browser, version 2.6.1.
Please do let me know if you have any other questions.
Comments
I keep wondering if having single payer for major medical would be the better way. I know many just want complete insurance. Major medical or hospital insurance as another way of saying, would take the fear of huge medical bills away. Simple doctor visits could be done via private insurance or paid by cash.
Most here probably will not agree with the above idea, and that's fine. What is needed is a simple plan, unlike the monstrosity we now have.
The issue to note, however, is that I was probably their favorite caller of the day because I knew what plan I wanted. I can't imagine people who are starting from scratch and they have to sit there and explain all the plans and if someone is new to health insurance (a young person who hasn't had to deal with this, "What's a deductible?")
Another aspect of this whole thing entirely is the recent Express Scripts vs Gilead issue, where you have this company (and there are a few others, but Express is certainly the biggest) that is effectively a gatekeeper keeping costs down and who may go, "Well, that's too expensive."
I actually think this is an interesting take on the situation:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2776255-what-happened-to-gilead-is-health-reform-in-action
That's something that I don't think has been talked about that much and is worth noting. Express is now talking about going after other companies.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2221826-express-scripts-is-biotechs-grinch
The push to cut costs has been ongoing for years but most of the time it's behind the scenes. These biotech therapies have brought the subject to the forefront.
Have no idea what "most here" would prefer, but what you are suggesting is exactly what I'd prefer also.
Regards- OJ
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/31490a20926d4ed3b98ff2d0ed8fc81d/new-privacy-concerns-over-governments-health-care-website
Daoudi's company, Catchpoint Systems, came across some 50 third-party connections embedded on HealthCare.gov. They work in the background, unseen to most consumers.
The AP replicated the results. In one 10-minute visit to HealthCare.gov recently, dozens of websites were accessed behind the scenes. They included Google's data-analytics service, Twitter, Facebook and a host of online advertising providers.
Tax problems with IRS? Probably the lesser of worries.
Your are correct. A lot of private info is input into the health.gov site. Hackers would love that and probably are already.
Indeed. Why?
Hello, sir
We do use Google data-analytics service on the site to track some basic usage stats. While we could turn on options to track demographic data, we don't. Mostly, we're interested in the number of visitors (approx. 26,000 per month), how long they stay on site (5 minutes on average), and what sort of tech they're using (Chrome browser tops the list, but Safari is creeping up). We also track whether visitors return and what pages they visit and if they find us after clicking a link in our email blast, a link they found on twitter, or a link in a search results page. Partially, we do this so we make sure the site performs well for folks, but mostly it helps us understand how to better serve our audience. We watch what features and stories folks find most interesting, whether they return after a first visit (60% do), and what sort of things they click on (in January, "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne" was a popular click).
We can not identify anyone individually from the data we see, unless someone wants to admit that they're the one and only user accessing the site with the SeaMonkey browser, version 2.6.1.
Please do let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Chip
"Sir"?? (Since when?)
BTW, I'll bet you lunch that I am the one and only user accessing the site with TenFourFox v.31.2.0!