Kokumin Kenko Hoken in the USA

[Bucky]

Just looking for any insights into Japanese National Health Insurance. We have an intern here in our office in Seattle. She is a student from Japan and paid a visit to an ER here in the Seattle area because of an asthma attack a month or so ago.

My question is, will Japanese National Health insurance cover any of her health care services that were rendered here in the US?

She made a two-hour visit to the ER here and has been slammed with a bill of $2,000-$3,000.

Buck

[omae mona]

Bucky, I just did a very quick scan (sorry I haven't found anything in English yet) but it looks like she might be covered. This page describes "kaigai ryouyouhi" procedures. It sounds to me as if she has two years to visit her local government office back in Japan to request reimbursement.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

She's covered for sure...as long as she brings back the receipts. She'll have to pay the U.S. hospital bill, but if she gives the receipts to the kokuho people here, she'll be reimbursed 70% of the cost as per usual.

[TennoChinko]

[Bucky]

Thanks for the input. Apparently she did all the right things. She contacted the school's international adviser who told her she would be covered. She also called her insurance company, (she has some form of health insurance here) and was told she would be covered but when the bill was submitted to the insurance company for payment, the insurance company told her, "Oh, so sorry, you are not covered."

[Billy]

Personal experience: my wife, (Japanese), was burned badly in Canada and we had to pay the bill 100% out of pocket. We came back to Japan and provided medical documents and receipts and we were reimbursed 70%.

The docs had to be translated to Japanese.

Some things were not approved by Japanese insurance. It was a while ago but I believe it was ambulance and various post injury treatments.

FYI: it was a faulty portable gas stove that you see everywhere in Japan that caused the gas canister to explode. Scary!

[Samurai_Jerk]

Personal experience: my wife, (Japanese), was burned badly in Canada and we had to pay the bill 100% out of pocket. We came back to Japan and provided medical documents and receipts and we were reimbursed 70%.

The docs had to be translated to Japanese.

Some things were not approved by Japanese insurance. It was a while ago but I believe it was ambulance and various post injury treatments.

FYI: it was a faulty portable gas stove that you see everywhere in Japan that caused the gas canister to explode. Scary!

Why didn't she have travel insurance?

[Billy]

Why didn't she have travel insurance?

She has dual citizenship so going to her home in Canada isn't considered "travel." We were out of Japan for a long time but stayed insured in both countries.

[Samurai_Jerk]

She has dual citizenship so going to her home in Canada isn't considered "travel." We were out of Japan for a long time but stayed insured in both countries.

If she was insured in Canada why didn't they pay for her treatment?

[Greji]

If she was insured in Canada why didn't they pay for her treatment?

And Japan also, but don't get into too much detail on the problems, or you will be attacked by a member of the Obama health care team...

[Samurai_Jerk]

And Japan also, but don't get into too much detail on the problems, or you will be attacked by a member of the Obama health care team...

Yeah, but he says that they got it taken care of in Japan. I'm wondering why Canada whouldn't cover it if she was indeed insured there.

Anyway, don't tell me you're one of these jackasses who thinks it's wrong for the government to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare.

[Greji]

Anyway, don't tell me you're one of these jackasses who thinks it's wrong for the government to ensure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare.

Access to affordable healthcare is not what those people are talking about. By just the definition of the term, it eliminates anything that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's people are trying to run through. One example is the so-called public option, which they say costs nothing. It costs me. Why should I have to pay for your, or anyone else's insurance? Well, I suppose the 1.4 Trillion dollar price tag is, of course, little significance if one wants to re-organize social order just to gain voters.

I do not believe that it is the federal government's function to dictate anything of the sort. At very best, it might a legal function of state governments.

But more importantly, I noticed the "jackasses" portion of your post, is that supposed to be a hint? Are you trying to insinuate they are better than goats? Do you know if they have any dating agencies where one could find out?

[Samurai_Jerk]

Access to affordable healthcare is not what those people are talking about. By just the definition of the term, it eliminates anything that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's people are trying to run through. One example is the so-called public option, which they say costs nothing. It costs me. Why should I have to pay for your, or anyone else's insurance? Well, I suppose the 1.4 Trillion dollar price tag is, of course, little significance if one wants to re-organize social order just to gain voters.

I do not believe that it is the federal government's function to dictate anything of the sort. At very best, it might a legal function of state governments.

But more importantly, I noticed the "jackasses" portion of your post, is that supposed to be a hint? Are you trying to insinuate they are better than goats? Do you know if they have any dating agencies where one could find out?

I don't think the plan they are trying to put through is workable. However, one of the reasons it looks so bad is the concessions that have to be made to get enough Republicans on board. Obama's plan sucks but at least he's trying to do something. The Republicans haven't done shit to try to solve the healthcare problems in the US. Making sure every American can get comprehensive health insurance should be a top priority of both parties. Anyone who thinks otherwise is morally corrupt.

[Greji]

However, one of the reasons it looks so bad is the concessions that have to be made to get enough Republicans on board.

That's one of the reasons that is suspect. Until just recently, they didn't need any Republicans on board. The Democrats had the numbers to pass it themselves. They had 60 votes to smooth sail it through the senate. The House numbers are not even close. Their claim of "needing to get Republicans on board" smells to high heaven of politics as usual.

The truth is that they can't get their own "Bluedog" Democrats on board and they didn't want to admit that so the Republicans get the blame. The Republicans haven't got the number of votes to stop anything.

[kino]

Access to affordable healthcare is not what those people are talking about. By just the definition of the term, it eliminates anything that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's people are trying to run through. One example is the so-called public option, which they say costs nothing. It costs me. Why should I have to pay for your, or anyone else's insurance? Well, I suppose the 1.4 Trillion dollar price tag is, of course, little significance if one wants to re-organize social order just to gain voters.

I do not believe that it is the federal government's function to dictate anything of the sort. At very best, it might a legal function of state governments.

But more importantly, I noticed the "jackasses" portion of your post, is that supposed to be a hint? Are you trying to insinuate they are better than goats? Do you know if they have any dating agencies where one could find out?

If done correctly the public option should save money. Unfortunately, the democrats have watered it down so much that it is likely to do much of anything. As for not wanting to pay for others health insurance, I take it you object to any form of taxation for public works projects. Why should you want to pay for roads, education, defense, or anything that benefits the welfare of the nation as a whole? The answer should be obvious (hint: you'll benefit too!)

Of course, we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was not for the greedy, amoral assholes dominating the health care industry. Health care as a for profit industry simply does not work. There is no incentive to insure the people who actually need insurance and every incentive to deny the claims of those you have insured.

[Greji]

If done correctly the public option should save money. Unfortunately, the democrats have watered it down so much that it is likely to do much of anything.

Which begs to say "Why do it?" Do we have some attempts to play politics here?

As for not wanting to pay for others health insurance, I take it you object to any form of taxation for public works projects. Why should you want to pay for roads, education, defense, or anything that benefits the welfare of the nation as a whole? The answer should be obvious (hint: you'll benefit too!)

I do benefit from public works, but that is something for me and the population as a whole. Defense belongs to the national government, but the national government should probably not be involved in any parts of education other than nationally funded schools. Education is a state issue for individual states, not the congress. There are many areas that the national government should not be involved with according to the constitution, but when politics mean more, people in Washington tend to forget that. As for your reference to the taxation issues, we obviously have apples and oranges here. Health care is an individual thing. There are many things we could do because they are the so-called "right thing to do." That doesn't mean we should or must do them.

Democrats and Republicans (although far left don't believe the Republican position) recognize the current health system needs revamping. The question of a public option or single payer is where a major difference, or problem comes in. The same "greedy" save money people you are talking about are also company owners, and they are going to jump to a public option in a flash. What company wouldn't trash expensive private employee coverage (no matter how good, or well-liked) for a cheap government guaranteed option that maybe totally insufficient? Especially, when they are going to be "fined" by the government if they don't have an insurance program. But even so, what suffers in the long run? The beneficiary and what he, or she, receive in the quality of their health care. This will be the problem.

What comes with nationalized health care? Longer waits for specialized care. Over management of your health care needs. Ask anyone from a nationalized nation about waits for service and/or availability of specialized treatment. Sure, there are good stories and some people have not had problems, but when one system becomes overloaded, management of care is the obvious next result. That does not exist in a freedom of choice system. Obviously, if one cannot afford insurance, it is great system. But, for those of us that are insured, it is a step backward and it could get worse. I am already forced to pay an extra $1,200 a year for health care in the US that I can't use in Japan because of separate government requirements. I already have two types of health coverage (three if you count kokuminhoken) and I still have to pay because the government says so. I can't help but wonder what add-ons am I going to get with the Pelosi/Reid circle jerk? I just don't believe that any national program is going to provide better than what I can get for treatment now and I also don't feel that I should give up what I have now, just to pay (through increased taxes) into a system that is supposed to be of benefit to all others.

I'm not saying that treatment under national health treatment doesn't exist, It's just that it is not and will never be that cure-all paradise and wonderful system that certain advocates would have us believe. I am also not sure it will be anywhere good enough (especially in this watered down state) to justify its cost on the whole.

We are further being told that we must have this voted on and in place before the month/year is out. Why is that? Anything passed now will not be in place until 2013, so what is the immediate emergency that we need a vote tomorrow, the end of the week, or before the month is out? Couldn't be politics could it? Something to crow about for the elections next year? None of it smells very good...

[Samurai_Jerk]

I love this boogey-man of government managed healthcare leading to long waits, rationing, and death panels. What the fuck do you think HMO's are doing right now?

[Greji]

I love this boogey-man of government managed healthcare leading to long waits, rationing, and death panels. What the fuck do you think HMO's are doing right now?

Ahh, how and why did HMO's come about.

Intresting piece by Thomas Sowell, seems to mention your present boogey-man vs. the future one. Who's right?:

".....What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?

Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.

If the government has some magic way of reducing costs-- rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation-- they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs-- of anything-- is more alarming than reassuring.

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?

Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases. The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many-- if not most-- of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.

Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.

Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.

But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies-- which means still higher costs and higher premiums.

All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly...."

[kino]

Any system will be imperfect. The goal is to create something better than we have now, and I think that is within the realm of both our abilities and our budget.

I do benefit from public works, but that is something for me and the population as a whole. Defense belongs to the national government, but the national government should probably not be involved in any parts of education other than nationally funded schools.

Defense from external threats = OK. Defense from internal threats = DAME. For me, universal health care is a moral issue. If we lived in a perfect world and everyone was born on exactly the same playing field, then I may have more sympathy for arguments that are basically, "If you don't have health care, tough luck. You should have been more responsible". The fact is, in America there exists a large segment of impoverished and disenfranchised citizens that simply cannot afford health care. It is a bridge too far. With that said, this isn't solely a problem for the working poor. Middle class families are struggling to find affordable insurance and when the shit hits the fan, they often end up in financial ruin:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/whats-most-likely-to-bankrupt-you.aspx

There are many things we could do because they are the so-called "right thing to do." That doesn't mean we should or must do them.

Hah, I don't even know how to respond to this. I mean, we aren't talking about an abstract philosophical concept here.

The argument that the Europeans are suffering under their very popular health care system is somewhat specious given the fact that there appear to be no large movements to do away with any of those systems. Are they perfect? No. But we are not aiming for perfection, just better. In the American system, Americans live shorter lives, fewer people are insured, and we pay more. Opponents of health care reform would seem to have us believe that this is clearly evidence of a superior system.

It is not like we are not familiar with a public option. How many Americans are clamoring for the end of Medicare? Republicans hated Medicare and fought tooth and nail against it, all the while using many of the same arguments making the circuit today, would not even dream of campaigning against Medicare now. So we already have an example of a good public option that works, why not simply extend Medicare to cover all Americans?

That is probably too simplistic. The issue is very complex and many of the issues you raised are valid. However, I think these concerns can be reasonable addressed by a strong public option.

The same "greedy" save money people you are talking about are also company owners, and they are going to jump to a public option in a flash.

My reference was to insurance company executives, not to business owners in general.

I can't help but wonder what add-ons am I going to get with the Pelosi/Reid circle jerk?

It is a digression, but apparently you are going to get crap like this:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/religions-that-rely-on-prayer-to-heal-add-twist-to-health-care-reform/1043304

We are further being told that we must have this voted on and in place before the month/year is out. Why is that?

Because one American dies every 12 minutes for lack of access to adequate health care?

Anything passed now will not be in place until 2013, so what is the immediate emergency that we need a vote tomorrow, the end of the week, or before the month is out? Couldn't be politics could it?

This seems to be an admission that health care reform would be popular and a winner politically for democrats. I agree.

[kino]

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life.

I think "elites controlling your life" is an apt description of the current state of health care in America.

Free loading at emergency rooms-- mandated by government-- makes being uninsured a viable option.

This is simply absurd. You think that if given the option the uninsured would prefer to "freeload" at emergency rooms? They cannot afford health insurance. So when they have a very serious medical condition, they put off (and by put off I mean cannot bloody afford) treatment until it is literally life threatening. We end up paying for those costs. Not the insurance companies. And guess what? It costs more to provide last minute emergency life-or-death treatment as opposed to timely prevention and treatment.

Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

You do realize that modern medical treatments, particularly for cancer, are ungodly expensive, right? In your system, only those few blessed with deep pocket books will be saved. How egalitarian!

But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Yes, because freedom requires the constant threat of death by lack of money and nothing could be more tyrannical then a government that provides universal health care.

In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks.

Annual checkups have nothing to do with risk? Prevention and early detection are key to managing risk. If you wait until the last minute, you (and the rest of society) are going to pay through the nose. As for fertility treatments, I doubt that the burden imposed by providing such a service would scale to anything like the costs associated of treating cancer.

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted.

Put down the Ayn Rand and come back to us in the real world! The truth is, quite a few people indeed do just "happen to have money". They inherited it, or they worked their connections and their privileged positions in society to obtain status and wealth beyond their merit. We just got done bailing out the titans of industry on Wall Street for their marvelous stewardship of our economy. The last thing I want to hear are high-minded proclamations about how the rich really worked hard to obtain their ill-gotten gains. The system is and has always been rigged to prefer those in power.

You want to know what the "elites" really think of you?:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P64954.asp

In America, we have enough money for "elites" to take out policies on your life, but not for you to buy decent, affordable health care. Victory for freedom!

[Mike Oxlong]

[yt]bIsId98MAJE[/yt]

[Samurai_Jerk]

Landmark health bill passes House on close vote

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority.

Republicans were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that would expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry.

The 220-215 vote late Saturday cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

Obama, who went to Capitol Hill earlier on Saturday to lobby wavering Democrats, said in a statement after the vote, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955. ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

[nottu]

[Samurai_Jerk]

not happening.
Obama - preconceived lame duck - and everybody thought he was smart - with the coming economic difficulties - 2010 - he may be royally fucked.
Lets see what happens - maybe he'll get lucky - personally I give him 1 out of 3.

Is that a one in three chance of making it or a one out of three grade for performance?

If the economy pics up enough to make a signifigant dent in unemployment in 2010, he'll make it. If not, he's toast.

From what I've read about the plan they came up with it seems like the worst of both world. Not only would the government spend more on health care as a result but insurance premiums would likely rise too. It is good that they mobilized both sides and finally got the country talking about this issue seriously though. Something has to be done. I'm not sure what though. Maybe John Stossel is right that the problem is actually insurance and not lack of it.

[yt]aEXFUbSbg1I[/yt]

[nottu]

[GuyJean]

[nottu]

[GuyJean]

[nottu]

[GuyJean]

Here's one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html
Of course you could find more if you were interested.

Whattaya know. An op-ed piece by another lawyer!

The writer is chairman of Common Good, a nonprofit legal reform coalition, and a partner with the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.

You know what they say about only listening to lawyers..

The op-ed uses this 'survey' taken by physicians and doctors. Would these be the same physicians and doctors practicing 'defensive' medicine because of the 'threat' of litigation. 'Now, if there was some way to fill out this 10 minute questionnaire to get these lawyers off my back.'

GJ