<p>GP, looked like 2 political links. </p>
<p>Let’s say your health care costs 12,000 a year.</p>
<p>And you were offered this deal. </p>
<p>1) You can have your healthcare costs covered every year or</p>
<p>2) You will be given 12,000 in cash the first year to pay for healthcare and you will receive 3 percent increases a year after that going forward to pay for your healthcare. </p>
<p>Which option would you choose?</p>
<p>The only people who could believe Medicaid is a “humanitarian catastrophe” are those whose lives have never been saved by it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, many Americans do seek medical care outside the U.S. Often the facilities and the practitioners are just as good, and the procedures are available for a fraction of the cost. It’s called “medical tourism,” and it’s a well known phenomenon.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?_r=0[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p>A family friend got a very rare kind of lung cancer. He had owned a dry goods store and worked around a lot of fabric (jeans, etc., ) It was a the type of lung cancer caused by inhaling fiber dust. He went everywhere in the US, including Sloan Kettering, but nothing worked. He heard about a treatment (not approved in the US,) I believe in Hungary, and went there for the treatment. It was very expensive but he lived another 15 years or so.</p>
<p>^That reminds me of the film “Dallas Buyers Club.” Who invented the current treatment for AIDS ?</p>
<p>“I find a comment like this very interesting. If any one of the posters in this thread got very sick, would you seek medical care outside of the US. The answer is no. None of you would leave the country.”</p>
<p>I’ve lived in India. In a heartbeat I would! And if I needed treatment for chronic diabetes, I’d MUCH rather receive treatment there. People from the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, etc. rarely come to the U.S. anymore - they go to India. And they can buy anything they want, choose any country they want, so it’s not a matter of price.</p>
<p>dstark, I’m not sure I understand the two options. In option 1 someone else is paying my premiums and in option 2 I am given the money to pay for my healthcare? Option 1 has no increases? Are you suggesting option 1 is similar to medicaid and option 2 is a voucher system that has been proposed by certain politicians?</p>
<p>So what do King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Hussein of Jordan, Premier Williams of Newfoundland (in a country with single payer), Prime Minister Berlusconi and thousands of Canadian citizens like Karen Jepp and Shona Holmes all have in common. Yep, they went to the US for treatment.</p>
<p>Ah, but Mini where did you and your SO go or do when you had your health crises? </p>
<p>Yes, i do know some who have ard are going overseas for treatments not offered here. Some stem cell work, some rare treatments overseas, yes, there are those. Also, I know a number who are getting elective work done overseas, particularly some plastic surgery, dental work, etc. When paying out of pocket, it’s a much better deal. Unless there is a specific targeted treatment not available here, and the consequences otherwise dire, nope. No way. </p>
<p>At both Johns Hopkins and UPMC, there are special towers for very well to do international patients. Gourmet treatments and rooms in the style of the Ritz. Oh, yes, we do cater to these group, and they do come here.</p>
<p>As for health care in India, i know doctors here who go to India to give care to so many without. From Doctors Without Borders:<br>
Quality healthcare remains out of reach for millions of people living in India. MSF provides free health services to people living in the states of Bihar and Chhattisgarh, the disputed region of Kashmir, remote villages on the border with Myanmar, as well as the enormous city of Mumbai.</p>
<p>I guess the situation is that many of us are so rich we can buy health care in India wheras the millions living there don’t get it.</p>
<p>I couldn’t (it was in the ER). The Saudi king now goes to India, thank you (you’ve got lots of old news). American insurance companies have been paying patients to get their care in India for years. I am sure there is more “out-medical tourism” than “in” at this point. (Until only a couple of years ago, Medicare patients and others used to board buses to Canada every two weeks, just a block from my office.</p>
<p>dstark, one reason for those links is to counter all the chatter on this thread about all the benefits of medicaid. Although millions of new people are being enrolled in medicaid, the system is no panacea for healthcare.</p>
<p>“The Saudi king now goes to India”</p>
<p>Do you have a source for this?</p>
<p>I know those who go to Canada. Those I do know are like my mother. They have a prescription for something like Spiriva which costs $60 a month here WITH insurance. That’s just one drug she has to take. In Japan she pays $10. I guess we could take the bus to Canada and save money on this drug too. Now if a person is uninsured, the cost of Spiriva is close to $400 a month so the savings can be terrific. Can take the Chinatown bus to Buffalo, Buffalo to Niagara Falls for very little and get prescriptions filled pennies to the dollar. Friend has a daugther with epilepsy, some of the drugs that don’t work but seem to be better than others that don’t work here, go to Canada for some pricey drugs that insurance won’t cover here. Now the deal is to get some form of pot (called Charlotte’s Web) available for those with uncontrollable seizures. We aren’t moving fast enough here so many are getting this on the gray/black market. </p>
<p>But I’ve seen too many in line here from other countries trying ot get treatment unavailable to them or hoping to get a charity card to get something covered that they don’t have a hope of getting in their home country. I know folks going to Mexico for holistic treatments illegal here, even as Mexicans sneak over here for medical treatment they cannot get there. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that it depends upon the condition, connections, economics as to what the best country is for medical treatment.</p>
<p>Option Number 1 doesnt have to be medicaid. It is just what I said… </p>
<p>Your healthcare is covered.</p>
<p>Option 2…you are given enough money to purchase your healthcare in year 1. 12,000. Each year you receive 3 percent more than the prior year to pay for your healthcare. </p>
<p>What do you choose? </p>
<p>1 or 2? </p>
<p>It is not that complicated.</p>
<p>If it’s true that low reimbursement rates are keeping doctors from signing up for ACA plans that means it will be a different kind of healthcare than people buying off the exchanges or whose employee plans are not yet cancelled.
That’s worrisome.</p>
<p>A lot of the medical tourism by Americans has been by people who needed major surgery but weren’t insured for it here, usually because their insurance company deemed it part of a “pre-existing condition.” Others couldn’t get medical insurance at all due to pre-existing conditions. If you’re paying out of pocket, it makes a lot more sense to have the surgery done in a hospital in Thailand, Singapore, or India for $10,000 than to have it done in the U.S. for $80,000. Many of these surgeries are performed by U.S.-trained doctors, in hospitals accredited by the same agency that accredits U.S. hospitals. And in some cases the foreign price tag includes round-trip airfare and a 2-week recuperation period at a beachfront resort!</p>
<p>I should think the ACA would cut into this sort of medical tourism because fewer people will be excluded from necessary surgeries by pre-existing conditions. As a consequence, I’d expect to see more U.S. health insurers offering overseas surgeries as part of their coverage so as to avoid having to absorb the cost of all those surgeries in the U.S. A few have reportedly begun to dabble in coverage of overseas surgeries already.</p>
<p>[Medical</a> tourism: The potential to save a bundle by having treatment abroad - Chicago Tribune](<a href=“Medical tourism: A faraway health fix”>Medical tourism: A faraway health fix)</p>
<p>Well, it is a little complicated. Option 1 could be attractive unless the health care was severely limited and of poor quality. Option 2 would be interesting if it was a truly competitive, transparent marketplace with plenty of choices. So the answer depends on the type of health care system in which these options are available.</p>
<p>Yeah…</p>
<p>Lol…</p>
<p>Be very careful…you may get 2 someday.</p>
<p>bclintonk, I would agree that the American system is not so great without insurance; however, if you do have decent insurance, it is the most state-of-the-art, technologically advanced, modern medical system in the world. It is the reason why it costs so much.</p>
<p>Like I said, under certain circumstances, 2 wouldn’t be so bad.</p>