• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 26 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $16,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $16 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

It's reportedly costing billions of dollars to treat hospitalized unvaccinated COVID patients

Breezy52

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
103
Reaction score
62
Points
88
Resorts Owned
Worldmark Platinum Owner
I would not be surprised to see some insurance companies start refusing to pay for patients that are not vaccinated.
Agreed ~
 

Breezy52

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
103
Reaction score
62
Points
88
Resorts Owned
Worldmark Platinum Owner
Yes and no. I used to show a video of a mother trying to find a doctor who would take Medicaid for prenatal care. After somewhere around fifty phone calls, she gave up. I won't claim that this problem exists everywhere, but this was here experience in a California city.
It is not so different with Medicare. The practice I have used for a couple of decades has been sold and resold, Drs changing every few years. Tried to get a new primary and haven't been able to. I see the reimbursement amounts from Medicare and understand why.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
2,084
Points
324
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
...How well we do with regard to life expectancy compared with other first world nations when one looks at just our elderly population compares very favorably. On the other side of the life cycle, we do horribly with regard to newborns. As some say, "How can you not provide free prenatal care?" Not doing so, is one of the OTHER reasons that our numbers are so bad. Free prenatal care would actually save us a lot of medical expense.
Not sure how you measure it, but I'm not sure I would conclude that the USA compares "very" favourably with other first-world nations. According to the most recent numbers (2019...i.e. pre-pandemic) for average life expectancy at age 65 for the 37 OECD countries, the United States ranks 22nd for men at 18.2 years and 25th for women at 20.8 years, which leaves the USA tied with the Netherlands in the bottom 35 to 40%.

Other than Belgium, Turkey, Mexico, and Columbia, all the remaining OECD countries with lower life expectancies than the USA are former eastern-block nations, which are not technically "first-world" under the traditional definition. I have included them anyway, since otherwise the rankings for the USA would be even worse. The comparable life expectancies for the other North American country, Canada, are 7th for men at 19.5 years and 8th for women at 22.2 years. So it is not just infant and maternal mortality rates that are poorer.

Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data
 
Last edited:

geekette

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
4,281
Points
448
Medicaid provides free prenatal care to low income. The vast majority of private practice OBs in our area took Medicaid for OB care. Unfortunately, many do not use it or are noncompliant with instructions, follow up, etc.
I think some lack of follow up would be attributable to not wanting to lose a job by taking doc appt time out or transportation. Low income usually means issues in these areas. Pregnancy has A Lot of appointments. The lower you are on the job scale, the less time off and overall flexibility.
 

"Roger"

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
893
Points
348
@CanuckTravlr Your link falls in line with my earlier comment. It shows life expectancy if you reach the age of 65 (when Medicare kicks in more or less). We (the US) do very well for our senior citizens, but not for our population as a whole. Here is a WHO report ranking nations with regard to health care.


We fall at 37th. (I don't know about more recently, but ten years ago, we would fall to something like 49th if it hadn't been for Medicare.)

If you don't trust WHO, here is a link that has a number of places that rank the top ten nations with regard to health care. The US did not make any of the lists.

 

elaine

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
1,511
Points
398
Location
DC
Resorts Owned
HGVC Eagles Nest, DVC-AKV, HHI, Waterside By Spinnaker
I think some lack of follow up would be attributable to not wanting to lose a job by taking doc appt time out or transportation. Low income usually means issues in these areas. Pregnancy has A Lot of appointments. The lower you are on the job scale, the less time off and overall flexibility.
yep. also possible lack of OB in poorer neighborhoods, etc. Covid has certainly put the spotlight on disparities of community healthcare.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
2,084
Points
324
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
@CanuckTravlr Your link falls in line with my earlier comment. It shows life expectancy if you reach the age of 65 (when Medicare kicks in more or less). We (the US) do very well for our senior citizens, but not for our population as a whole. Here is a WHO report ranking nations with regard to health care.


We fall at 37th. (I don't know about more recently, but ten years ago, we would fall to something like 49th if it hadn't been for Medicare.)

If you don't trust WHO, here is a link that has a number of places that rank the top ten nations with regard to health care. The US did not make any of the lists.

I wasn't making any reference to specific health care systems, but to your comments about life expectancy. In your previous post (#22) that I quoted, you made the statement that the USA compares very favourably with other first-world countries for life expectancy of its elderly population. The WHO study you have now quoted deals with 191 countries (almost the whole world), not just first-world countries. I certainly trust both the WHO and the OECD, but your most recent reference is to overall health care. I was solely referencing life expectancy of the elderly in the first-world.

The chart that I quoted in my post showed the USA towards the bottom of the list for average life expectancy of senior citizens in OECD (first-world) countries, not from birth, but from age 65, in other words the elderly population. I hope you are not trying to make the point that the USA fares well against all the countries in the world, including the poorest of those 191. If so, I'm not sure that counts for bragging rights, and it wasn't what you referred to in your prior post.

Without getting into a political discussion, Medicare simply puts the USA on a more apples-to-apples playing field vis à vis its senior citizens, since most other first-world nations also take good care of their senior citizens, including some form of universal health care. Yet the USA still falls towards the bottom end when compared to those other first-world nations. My initial disagreement and clarification was with your use of "very" favourably., since I believe the OECD report indicates otherwise.

To use a more specific example, when the USA is compared to Canada, which is near the top of the OECD list, the difference is almost 1.5 years or 7% longer remaining life expectancy for the average 65-year-old Canadian versus the average comparable American. Of course, those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid may have even better outcomes, but we are dealing with overall national outcomes. Maybe that is not a significant difference to you, but as a 72-year-old, I can assure I will be very happy to hopefully get the benefit of that extra time!! :) ;)
 
Last edited:

Brett

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
3,067
Points
448
Location
Newport News, Va.
I wasn't making any reference to specific health care systems, but to your comments about life expectancy. In your previous post (#22) that I quoted, you made the statement that the USA compares very favourably with other first-world countries for life expectancy of its elderly population. The WHO study you have now quoted deals with 191 countries (almost the whole world), not just first-world countries. I certainly trust both the WHO and the OECD, but your most recent reference is to overall health care. I was solely referencing life expectancy of the elderly in the first-world.

The chart that I quoted in my post showed the USA towards the bottom of the list for average life expectancy of senior citizens in OECD (first-world) countries, not from birth, but from age 65, in other words the elderly population. I hope you are not trying to make the point that the USA fares well against all the countries in the world, including the poorest of those 191. If so, I'm not sure that counts for bragging rights, and it wasn't what you referred to in your prior post.

Without getting into a political discussion, Medicare simply puts the USA on a more apples-to-apples playing field vis à vis its senior citizens, since most other first-world nations also take good care of their senior citizens, including some form of universal health care. Yet the USA still falls towards the bottom end when compared to those other first-world nations. My initial disagreement and clarification was with your use of "very" favourably., since I believe the OECD report indicates otherwise.

To use a more specific example, when the USA is compared to Canada, which is near the top of the OECD list, the difference is almost 1.5 years or 7% longer remaining life expectancy for the average 65-year-old Canadian versus the average comparable American. Of course, those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid may have even better outcomes, but we are dealing with overall national outcomes. Maybe that is not a significant difference to you, but as a 72-year-old, I can assure I will be very happy to hopefully get the benefit of that extra time!! :) ;)
I would also want a few extra years ;)
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
474
Points
243
Location
Deltona Florida
There is a thread elsewhere about Delta's no-vaccination $200 surcharge and workers lining up to get vaccinated. THAT is the way to do it, incentivize getting the Covid19 vaccine by penalizing those who don't. The simple fact is, insurers and Medicare Advantage/Supplement plans paid out billions to treat those who got the virus before vaccines and those who refused vaccines once available. The $200 surcharge should be placed on all plans, because it is far cheaper to pay for 2 jabs than it is to intubate a person for 3-5 weeks. Do you smoke? Many plans lay on a surcharge because smokers usually die a long cancer-ridden and/or heart-disease death.

TS
 

Brett

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
3,067
Points
448
Location
Newport News, Va.
There is a thread elsewhere about Delta's no-vaccination $200 surcharge and workers lining up to get vaccinated. THAT is the way to do it, incentivize getting the Covid19 vaccine by penalizing those who don't. The simple fact is, insurers and Medicare Advantage/Supplement plans paid out billions to treat those who got the virus before vaccines and those who refused vaccines once available. The $200 surcharge should be placed on all plans, because it is far cheaper to pay for 2 jabs than it is to intubate a person for 3-5 weeks. Do you smoke? Many plans lay on a surcharge because smokers usually die a long cancer-ridden and/or heart-disease death.

TS
incentives can work, anything upfront is better than long term hospitalization costs
 
Top