<p>Emilybee, sorry to read what you have been going thru.</p>
<p>What an interesting point, Bay. All of that running around to doctors is not something people who pay out of pocket do. They consider the cost of every visit and every test and ACA unfortunately does nothing to change this. I have personally witnessed people in very bad physical shape pondering whether or not to go to the ER because of the cost involved. That problem still exists.</p>
<p>Best wishes Emily.</p>
<p>Actingmt, nevermind.</p>
<p>Well, dstark, the article is pretty skimpy so I’m not endorsing it but rather just saying it sounds interesting. It seems to take into account the state economy and provide for catastrophic care. As TatinG has noted above, insurance is for catastrophes not routine care. And one-size-fits-all across 50 states has produced some wildly varying levels of “affordability”.</p>
<p>Dstark, </p>
<p>1 in 4 Californians are now enrolled in Medi-Cal. Do you project that number goes up or down in the foreseeable future? </p>
<p>Premiums rising each year for employers and those in individual market, with or without ACA rules. </p>
<p>CBO still projects 30 million uninsured in a decade. And rising costs that will continue to be less sustainable in decades ahead. </p>
<p>Those subsidies that help reduce payments to consumers come from somewhere. </p>
<p>Are we just kicking the can down the road? </p>
<p>I would love to have seen a real fix to what ails us in health insurance in the US. </p>
<p>i found this article interesting.
[The</a> Health-Insurance Solution > Publications > National Affairs](<a href=“http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-health-insurance-solution]The”>The Health-Insurance Solution | National Affairs)</p>
<p>“If you had not had the resources to see a doctor about your condition, wouldn’t you be in the same position you are in now? (Or better, because you would not have had to remedy a doctor’s error). Or did I misunderstand and you have a diagnosis?”</p>
<p>I suppose if I had no resources I would have had to go to the emergency room over and over and over again. I was in excruciating pain from the get go so not going to a doctor or ER, if that was my only option, was not an option. </p>
<p>I don’t know what would have been if I had gone to the ER straight away if the outcome would have been better, worse, or the same. </p>
<p>My case was complicated because every urine test showed something different. Some showed a regular infection with blood, some showed infection with no blood, others showed nothing. Only the tests the uro did, which he put under the microscope and looked at personally, besides sending them to the lab, showed nothing. The tests done by both my primary and gyno which I had several times at each office - both had tests showing the different results. The uro said that because I was on an anti-spasmatic - which turns your pee orange - test done in the office or ER often seem to show nitrates (which means infection) because of the difficulty reading them because of the dye. Neither my primary, gyno or ER doctor even thought the pyridium would do that. </p>
<p>No diagnosis except I likely had some kind of infection, probably viral, in the beginning, but presented like a UTI so I was treated with Cipro. I felt better only for a few days and then all symptoms returned with a vengeance - do to what, I don’t know. Then all the additional antibiotics made me worse (I’m allergic to bactrim so perhaps very sensitive to other antib’s) along with my ever increasing anxiety.</p>
<p>Emilybee, i had recurrent bouts of UTI one year along with a kidney infection, but did not get all those same tests you went through The antibiotics were a killer and I think each time prescribed, the infection never cured. I took probiotics for women and cranberry supplements, and this helped, immensely.</p>
<p>Emily, been there, somewhat. On our former Cadillac plan, able to see some powerful local specialists. It’s a real testament to the want for sufficient insurance, even if it includes a deductible- and was one of my considerations in selecting our new plan. I want to know, if it is reasonable to know. In my case, Bay, yes, I am where I started- but with knowledge. Thus, some control- ie, I know today what I would not want to learn ten years from now, when resolution would be more drastic, the rush for info more pressing and frightening. If something does “flare,” we will catch it much, much earlier. </p>
<p>Seems to me (dinner convo opinion) that some front-end work like diet counseling and depression screening are small potatoes in time and cost, for those. This isn’t big ticket to us or insurers and doesn’t require multiple visits/year, in themselves. Otoh, for those willing to pursue some remedy to whatever is learned or the advice given, it can affect health, going forward. And, I think, that’s the point. We could all name several conditions that are better explored early. Pre-natal may be more expensive, but the whole point is to birth healthy babies-- not start the cycle all over again of trying to fix what possibly could have been prevented. Not throw tens of thousands of dollars at the situation, later. Don’t begrudge it so easily. </p>
<p>That seems to be what comes up- who begrudges what, forgetting the ultimate costs of ignoring. Not just to the individual.</p>
<p>“ll of that running around to doctors is not something people who pay out of pocket do. They consider the cost of every visit and every test and ACA unfortunately does nothing to change this. I have personally witnessed people in very bad physical shape pondering whether or not to go to the ER because of the cost involved. That problem still exists.”</p>
<p>I would have ended up killing myself I was in such excruciating pain. I couldn’t function. The pyridium I was on eased the bladder pain but you are not supposed to take it for more than a few days. It worked, but once I went off it - I was back in excruciating pain again. After that they kept me on it the whole time so I could function somewhat. </p>
<p>Not everything is an easy diagnosis and it could have ended up that I had bladder cancer or some other weird chronic disease. No one knows what life has in store for them, which is why I think having comprehensive coverage is what everyone should have.</p>
<p>SL, we are not kicking the can down the road. That is why so many people are upset.</p>
<p>ACA cuts the deficit.
Do you want to insure illegal immigrants?
Medi-Cal is a function of the economy.
Milliman did a study and said there wouldnt be enough revenues generated with catastrophic insurance for all.</p>
<p>“i had recurrent bouts of UTI one year along with a kidney infection, but did not get all those same tests you went through”</p>
<p>I had to have all those tests because the urine tests all kept coming back with differing results. Everyone was perplexed by the conflicting results - except the uro. And since I never had a urologist before - it wasn’t like I could just call him up and get an appointment’s right off the bat. I was very lucky I was seen as quickly as I was. My gyno called on a Thursday and the Uro took me the following Monday. They took samples and scheduled the cysto for the following Monday (just this past one.) Incredibly quickly, imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep mentioning these penny-ante things as if they are the reason your healthcare premium skyrocketed. They are not. Your premium went up a little bit to cover these things, and a whole lot to cover serious diseases and conditions of sick people who previously couldn’t buy in to your insurance. </p>
<p>If, with a wave of my hand, I could eliminate all the free services you mention, the premiums you object to would still be about as high, a tiny bit lower, and you would still be just as unhappy. In order for you to be happy, we would have to eliminate the one major item that made your premium skyrocket-- providing health care to sick people. If you want to object to your premium being so high, object to what is making it high, namely providing health care to sick people by allowing them to buy the same insurance you buy.</p>
<p>Oh, emilybee, that sounds terrible. I hope you are feeling better.</p>
<p>Catastrophic sounds good for the young and healthy who will likely remain healthy. As if one could predict. I would hate to be in a position where I thought I was oh so smart in weighing a trip to the doc and later learned the damage that had done. For heaven’s sake, use Emily’s situation, not dispute it, since it is real, not hypothetical, nor something minor someone else may have simply put up with. Ime, uro can be hard to get a grip on. The very process of obtaining and evaluating the samples can complicate the findings, some of which are human-determined, not machine-measured.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, because the way to fix our disturbingly terrible maternal/infant health statistics in this country is to continue doing what we’ve been doing by not making it mandatory coverage… you know, the exact opposite of what the rest of the developed world does- and results in a lot less infant and mother deaths.</p>
<p>“Emilybee, sorry to read what you have been going thru.”</p>
<p>Thanks dstark! And Cardinal! Slowly getting there. I’ve lost 10 pounds that I couldn’t afford to lose (no appetite, anxiety) and just started probiotics on Wednesday. Eating very small meals so my stomach doesn’t go to wonky on me.</p>
<p>Some would like to pick and choose what is covered- for them and everyone else. Some would like to point fingers. I don’t think any of us have sufficient medical expertise to dictate. Nor do I think the mandatory coverages were pulled out of thin air.</p>
<p>Yes, the maternal mortality rate in this country is a scandal. (Maternal mortality rate is the rate of pregnant women dying around the time of childbirth.)</p>
<p>The infant mortality statistics are skewed due to differences in how deaths are assessed. Some countries don’t count very preemie deaths or those who die minutes after birth as infant deaths.</p>
<p>So? We don’t need to focus efforts on this, things are better than we think? A link would help.</p>