by Tricia Stewart Shiu
One bright December morning in 2008, my phone rang and—regretfully—I picked up. It was a woman from my insurance company who began with a less than cordial tone.
"You should have gotten your MRI pre-approved before you had it. Do you understand?" She wasn't screaming, but was close.
My four-year-old daughter, Sydney, sat quietly coloring next to me. I did my best to stay calm.
In August of that year, two close friends were diagnosed with breast cancer. This news drove me into a panic because I have a family history. My mother, aunt, grandmother and great-grandmother all had breast cancer. My aunt died from breast cancer. I immediately called the specialist I'd been seeing annually for checkups and told him I wanted the whole shebang.
The BRCA test—which detects the breast cancer gene—the doctor ordered, was partially covered by my insurance, as was my annual mammogram. However, the MRI, which my doctor had consistently pestered me to get, threw my insurance company—and therefore this woman—into a tizzy.
On March 23, 2010, President Obama put his signature on a landmark Health Care Bill that brought affordable insurance to 32 million people.
Fear ran through my body as this faceless woman invalidated my explanations one after another. The call ended abruptly with her announcing that payment for the MRI—around $8,000—would, most likely, be left entirely up to me. My husband and I had been hit hard by the economic downturn and this would definitely put us over the edge of our hyper-extended finances. I hung up and looked at Sydney.
The new health care bill will immediately affect my ability to appeal any decision made by an insurance company. And through this new bill, I will also have access to a federally subsidized and state run health insurance consumer assistance program.
I have witnessed all of the above mentioned family members battle insurance companies over the years—some more successfully than others. My mother, diagnosed with breast cancer five years ago, was dropped from her insurance and went for several months without.
Source
=========
It sad to see some people dropped from their insurance.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Rudd to Debate Abbott in Start to Election Campaign
By Marion Rae
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will face opposition leader Tony Abbott in an unprecedented leaders’ debate on health next week, effectively starting the election campaign before a date has been set for the ballot.
“The campaign has begun,” political commentator Malcolm Mackerras at the University of New South Wales said in a telephone interview today. “The election will be quite early. I think it will be the 21st of August, that’s my tip.”
Australian leaders typically face off in a debate only after an election date has been set. Rudd and Abbott agreed yesterday to discuss health on March 23 at the National Press Club in Canberra, in the first of three debates before the ballot that is likely to be held this year.
Rudd, 52, who has to call an election before April 2011, is using his health plan as a key element of his election platform. His approval rating fell to 48 percent, its lowest level since he became Labor leader in 2006, according to a poll last week.
Rudd has support on health, according to a poll cited in the Sydney Morning Herald daily newspaper today. The Age/Nielson poll of 1,400 people between March 4 and 6 shows 53 percent of voters trust Labor on health compared with 37 percent for the opposition Liberal-National coalition, and 79 percent support a greater role for the federal government in funding Australia’s hospital system. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.
System Wrecked
“I am ready” for the debate, Abbott told Nine Network television today. Australians “don’t want their public hospital system wrecked by this prime minister,” he told parliament yesterday. “They don’t want their public hospital system wrecked by someone who is engaging in amateur-hour experimentation.”
Rudd wants the central government to take control of funding and policy for doctors and other primary health services as the first part of an overhaul of the health service promised during the 2007 election. He is asking Australia’s state governments to support the plan.
To pay for the revamp, announced on March 3, Rudd intends to use 30 percent of the goods and services taxes that now flow to states. That would leave the state governments paying for 40 percent of the health care bill with less control over how money is spent.
“Labor’s strategists think health is their strongest point,” Mackerass said. “They’re wanting to make the most of their strongest point while they can and hope that they can get this proposal of Rudd’s through and embarrass Tony Abbott because he doesn’t have any policy.”
Health Talks
“What I sense across the board with all the (state) premiers is a desire and a determination to move ahead with health and hospitals reform,” Rudd told reporters today after talks last week with the leaders of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. “Plainly, they have raised a number of questions.”
The government will “seek a further mandate from the Australian people” to implement the plan if no agreement is reached with the states, he said.
“I don’t think anyone out there is saying the system at present is good enough,” Rudd said. “People want better health and better hospital services.”
Abbott, a health minister in the former conservative government which introduced a private health insurance tax rebate to take the pressure off the public health system, wants more control for local hospital boards and is yet to provide other details of the opposition’s health policy.
About 44.7 percent of Australia’s population, or 9.87 million people, have insurance policies covering hospital treatment, the latest Private Health Insurance Administration Council data shows.
The Labor-led state governments in South Australia and Tasmania go to the polls tomorrow in elections that may result in hung parliaments where Labor will need the support of smaller parties to govern.
“We expect they will both go down to the wire,” Rudd’s Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told ABC Radio today.
--Editors: Paul Tighe, Ben Richardson.
To contact the reporter on this story: Marion Rae in Canberra at mrae3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Iain Wilson at iwilson2@bloomberg.net
Source
======================
I wish those policies especially with regards to health insurance will greatly benefited the Australians people.
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will face opposition leader Tony Abbott in an unprecedented leaders’ debate on health next week, effectively starting the election campaign before a date has been set for the ballot.
“The campaign has begun,” political commentator Malcolm Mackerras at the University of New South Wales said in a telephone interview today. “The election will be quite early. I think it will be the 21st of August, that’s my tip.”
Australian leaders typically face off in a debate only after an election date has been set. Rudd and Abbott agreed yesterday to discuss health on March 23 at the National Press Club in Canberra, in the first of three debates before the ballot that is likely to be held this year.
Rudd, 52, who has to call an election before April 2011, is using his health plan as a key element of his election platform. His approval rating fell to 48 percent, its lowest level since he became Labor leader in 2006, according to a poll last week.
Rudd has support on health, according to a poll cited in the Sydney Morning Herald daily newspaper today. The Age/Nielson poll of 1,400 people between March 4 and 6 shows 53 percent of voters trust Labor on health compared with 37 percent for the opposition Liberal-National coalition, and 79 percent support a greater role for the federal government in funding Australia’s hospital system. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.
System Wrecked
“I am ready” for the debate, Abbott told Nine Network television today. Australians “don’t want their public hospital system wrecked by this prime minister,” he told parliament yesterday. “They don’t want their public hospital system wrecked by someone who is engaging in amateur-hour experimentation.”
Rudd wants the central government to take control of funding and policy for doctors and other primary health services as the first part of an overhaul of the health service promised during the 2007 election. He is asking Australia’s state governments to support the plan.
To pay for the revamp, announced on March 3, Rudd intends to use 30 percent of the goods and services taxes that now flow to states. That would leave the state governments paying for 40 percent of the health care bill with less control over how money is spent.
“Labor’s strategists think health is their strongest point,” Mackerass said. “They’re wanting to make the most of their strongest point while they can and hope that they can get this proposal of Rudd’s through and embarrass Tony Abbott because he doesn’t have any policy.”
Health Talks
“What I sense across the board with all the (state) premiers is a desire and a determination to move ahead with health and hospitals reform,” Rudd told reporters today after talks last week with the leaders of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. “Plainly, they have raised a number of questions.”
The government will “seek a further mandate from the Australian people” to implement the plan if no agreement is reached with the states, he said.
“I don’t think anyone out there is saying the system at present is good enough,” Rudd said. “People want better health and better hospital services.”
Abbott, a health minister in the former conservative government which introduced a private health insurance tax rebate to take the pressure off the public health system, wants more control for local hospital boards and is yet to provide other details of the opposition’s health policy.
About 44.7 percent of Australia’s population, or 9.87 million people, have insurance policies covering hospital treatment, the latest Private Health Insurance Administration Council data shows.
The Labor-led state governments in South Australia and Tasmania go to the polls tomorrow in elections that may result in hung parliaments where Labor will need the support of smaller parties to govern.
“We expect they will both go down to the wire,” Rudd’s Foreign Minister Stephen Smith told ABC Radio today.
--Editors: Paul Tighe, Ben Richardson.
To contact the reporter on this story: Marion Rae in Canberra at mrae3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Iain Wilson at iwilson2@bloomberg.net
Source
======================
I wish those policies especially with regards to health insurance will greatly benefited the Australians people.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Reform Notes From All Over
by James Fallows
In my copious spare time, I'm filling out forms for a non-tourist ("class 457") visa to Australia, for regular visits I'll be making as part of the new U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. That's a whole promising story for another time. Here's the relevance now, during Health Care Reform Showdown weekend:
In all the piles of documentation to provide the Australian authorities, two required items got my attention. One was a copy of my marriage certificate, so that my wife and I can travel together. (Hmmm, ours was written in cuneiform. Where would that be now?) And the other is: certificated proof that we both are covered by an "adequate" health insurance policy. Otherwise, they won't let you in. It's part of the principle that, of course, for shared social risk and as a bulwark against bankrupting individual surprises, everyone must be insured.
Every so often there is a reminder of how unusual, in world terms, the lack of such an assumption and system has been in the United States. In the nearly two generations since the passage of Medicare, Americans have come to take for granted that of course there will be some safety net for older people with the inevitable maladies of age. Exceptions to that are seen as scandals. On the highway, everyone understands that it's irresponsible and anti-social, along with illegal, for people to drive without insurance. What if they cripple someone? What if they plow through someone's front yard and damage their house?
Whatever happens tomorrow, and it seems as if the Democrats may finally have 216 votes, I bet that a generation from now Americans will have the same "of course everyone needs it!" attitude about health insurance that we now have about car insurance and Medicare. Few people who weren't around in 1965 can imagine how bitter, emotional, and divisive the debate about passing Medicare was at the time. If anything the fears of impending socialism were greater than they are now -- because back then, there was no Medicare in existence about which people could say: "Well, that program's OK, but anything more would be socialist." I think the incredible fury of this year's debate will have the same hard-to-recreate quality once health insurance becomes as matter-of-fact as -- yes -- car insurance is now. As I mentioned when the Senate pulled together 60 votes last summer, this is a moment to notice and remember. And, I'll be watching the vote.
Source
===========================================
Those reforms may or may not give you more benefits especially on your health insurance policy.
In my copious spare time, I'm filling out forms for a non-tourist ("class 457") visa to Australia, for regular visits I'll be making as part of the new U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. That's a whole promising story for another time. Here's the relevance now, during Health Care Reform Showdown weekend:
In all the piles of documentation to provide the Australian authorities, two required items got my attention. One was a copy of my marriage certificate, so that my wife and I can travel together. (Hmmm, ours was written in cuneiform. Where would that be now?) And the other is: certificated proof that we both are covered by an "adequate" health insurance policy. Otherwise, they won't let you in. It's part of the principle that, of course, for shared social risk and as a bulwark against bankrupting individual surprises, everyone must be insured.
Every so often there is a reminder of how unusual, in world terms, the lack of such an assumption and system has been in the United States. In the nearly two generations since the passage of Medicare, Americans have come to take for granted that of course there will be some safety net for older people with the inevitable maladies of age. Exceptions to that are seen as scandals. On the highway, everyone understands that it's irresponsible and anti-social, along with illegal, for people to drive without insurance. What if they cripple someone? What if they plow through someone's front yard and damage their house?
Whatever happens tomorrow, and it seems as if the Democrats may finally have 216 votes, I bet that a generation from now Americans will have the same "of course everyone needs it!" attitude about health insurance that we now have about car insurance and Medicare. Few people who weren't around in 1965 can imagine how bitter, emotional, and divisive the debate about passing Medicare was at the time. If anything the fears of impending socialism were greater than they are now -- because back then, there was no Medicare in existence about which people could say: "Well, that program's OK, but anything more would be socialist." I think the incredible fury of this year's debate will have the same hard-to-recreate quality once health insurance becomes as matter-of-fact as -- yes -- car insurance is now. As I mentioned when the Senate pulled together 60 votes last summer, this is a moment to notice and remember. And, I'll be watching the vote.
Source
===========================================
Those reforms may or may not give you more benefits especially on your health insurance policy.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Private Healthcare System
In Australia like in Sydney, we’re looked after by a healthcare system that has two parts: a public system and private system. But this blog is very specific----it's about Private Health Insurance, so here are some information of the Private Health System from www.nib.com.au:
Private Healthcare System
The private, or non-government part of the healthcare system, is made up of private hospitals, private health insurance companies and other health providers like dentists. Medicare doesn’t pay for these.
The private heathcare system includes things like:
There are some things to remember about the private healthcare system:
1. You won’t have to wait on a Public Hospital Waiting List to attend a private hospital.
2.You can choose which hospital and which doctors treat you.
3.If you take out private health insurance to help pay for your treatment, you might have to wait a while before you’re covered. That’s called a Waiting Period.
For more information about Australia's Healthcare System
Private Healthcare System
The private, or non-government part of the healthcare system, is made up of private hospitals, private health insurance companies and other health providers like dentists. Medicare doesn’t pay for these.
The private heathcare system includes things like:
- treatment in a private hospital
- ambulance trips
- dentistry
- eyeglasses and
- treatments like physio and acupuncture
There are some things to remember about the private healthcare system:
1. You won’t have to wait on a Public Hospital Waiting List to attend a private hospital.
2.You can choose which hospital and which doctors treat you.
3.If you take out private health insurance to help pay for your treatment, you might have to wait a while before you’re covered. That’s called a Waiting Period.
For more information about Australia's Healthcare System
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)