america' healthcare nightmare

[Drew]

While I am covered and thankfully so, I do see that we have a problem in the US.

It is not only health care on which we are being gouged. Take a look at cell phone use.

spread sheet http://statlinks.oecdcode.org/932009031P1G084.XLS

or

phone.jpg

The Canadians are all upset about paying the third highest rates http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1883096 Here in the United States nothing is being said about paying the highest rates.

[mugley]

I really don't understand why so many people are scared of providing a good healthcare system for everyone.

IMHO, it's part of the old "Haves and Have Nots" conundrum. The Haves [i.e., the people who have a moderate-to-high income, and all the trappings thereof] don't want any of their tax revenue to benefit the Have Nots [i.e., the lower-paid/poor, minorities, the unfortunate, the unwashed, etc.].

I challenge anyone to prove conclusively and completely, otherwise. Hint: You won't, so there.

No but you CAN NOT prove that it is that either so its a moot point!! just lie those that are trying to call it a racist arguement

Look I would benefit from it but I don;t think its good for the country not as that bill stands now, and I have never seen the govt get involved in anything that got better and cheaper/

I realize that what might be good for me is not always what's best for the country, yes something needs to be done but that bill wasn't it

[ffh]

yes something needs to be done but that bill wasn't it

What type of healthcare reform would you support?

[mugley]

what would I support? well for starters one that didn't exclude congress and the white house, if its good enough for us common folk, then it surely ought to be good enough for them.

a vastly simpler bill, one that the congress and the president will actually read before recommending it to the people, let alone voting and signing.


One that established a commission of doctors. health insurance experts, and advocates for the people to control it, not political toadies

one that gave doctors freedom to actually treat people without non medical bean counters having the say in treatment, but without fear of being sued if they make an honest mistake


one that had provisions for honest competitive bidding for supplies and services ie co-op style

perhaps one that required doctors who had govt help in getting their degree to serve as doctors in govt supported free clinics for a period of say 5 years, at a fair salary of course

one that made use of medics coming out of the military in of clinics, after all most of the were responsible for the health of over a 100 people in far more trying circumstances, shame to waste that experience and knowledge

[ffh]

what would I support? well for starters one that didn't exclude congress and the white house, if its good enough for us common folk, then it surely ought to be good enough for them.

I don't think this will ever happen, it may be a nice goal, but people of privilege have always had access to better quality goods and services. And also this would not fly in the United States, because this is a capitalist country, and "everyone eating from the same trough" is more in line with communist ideals. On that one I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree



a vastly simpler bill, one that the congress and the president will actually read before recommending it to the people, let alone voting and signing.

I think we can find some common ground here. The bill may not be able to be made simpler, because our society is very complex these days. However, we have common ground in that I also believe that politicians and president should read the bill before signing.



One that established a commission of doctors. health insurance experts, and advocates for the people to control it, not political toadies

Some areas of agreement here, as well as disagreement. An oversight commission is an area where we can agree, and I think that there should be doctors as well as advocates on the commission. I would also exclude politicians. However, I think insurance representatives would merely be lobbyists for their own self interests and I would suggest someone from academia as a good alternative.



one that gave doctors freedom to actually treat people without non medical bean counters having the say in treatment, but without fear of being sued if they make an honest mistake

On the paperwork we have common ground. There are literally hundreds different forums, each insurance company uses a different form, symptoms of drug abuse, child abuse, crime and driving impairment must be reported to various government agencies, licensing must be applied for and so on. It is estimated these days that for every doctor two administrators are required just to fill out the paperwork.

There does need to be tort reform, however, going to court is often the only way an injured patient can get the insurance company, to which the doctor makes payments for coverage in case a mistake is made, to pay a settlement which would cover future treatment, pain and suffering, loss of ability, and loss of future income. This is not a criminal action unless the doctor is negligent, and we do need to find a way to cover people who are accidentally injured through no fault of their own.



one that had provisions for honest competitive bidding for supplies and services ie co-op style

This would be a good goal, on that we can agree. But it is not as easy as that. Health co-ops are already a part of the landscape, but they require a huge amount of capital and paperwork to get started. Then they face the additional hurdle of doctors who do not want yet one more set of forms to fill out. This is why many small startup insurance companies are excluded from practices.



perhaps one that required doctors who had govt help in getting their degree to serve as doctors in govt supported free clinics for a period of say 5 years, at a fair salary of course

A good idea. Since most medical educations are financed by student loans, I assume you are speaking of forgiving the loans or part of the loan.



one that made use of medics coming out of the military in of clinics, after all most of the were responsible for the health of over a 100 people in far more trying circumstances, shame to waste that experience and knowledge

Another good idea. We have no disagreement on this.

[Jack Flash]

Let me just pass along something that was sent to me a few hours ago


A Sick Twist of Fate
Aug.19 2009
Andrea Smith

In a sick twist of fate, compromises to the health-care reform bill may leave Americans, far worse off than they were prior to health care reform.
At the insistence of Republicans and conservative Democrats, a requirement that Americans obtain health insurance - the so-called "insurance mandate" was added to the health-care bill. Without meaningful alternatives to costly, for-profit insurance, Americans would be forced to purchase expensive private insurance policies or face fines and penalties. Those with pre-existing conditions, or who for other reasons are not able to purchase private insurance, as well as those who choose not to purchase private insurance would have to pay a penalty tax.


Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.

The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and "such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe." (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.

The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:

(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at "any time" during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a "shared responsibility payment" not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually

Interestingly this may have the most impact on small-business owners and independent contractors, the very core of the conservative opposition to health-care forum.

[cerina]

May I throw another thought into the cauldron?

One of the highest bills in the UK's National Health Service is the cost of medication. In the US you pay, on average, 50% more for medication than we do. The liaison between the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies is obscene and reducing the cost of medication would inevitably result in a lowering of insurance premiums.

[Jack Flash]

Re: In a sick twist of fate, compromises to the health-care reform bill may leave Americans, far worse off than they were prior to health care reform


Scanning the headlines this morning it appears that people are beginning to realize this could happen, and seem to be going back to the negotiating table.

[J Mc Neil]

I remembered this forum when I saw this story in AOL Money & Finance

This kind of helped me understand http://money.aol.com/article/competitio ... lth/634876?

Competition lacking among private health insurers
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
AP

WASHINGTON -One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class
is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.
Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic
conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a
government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink
his effort to overhaul the health care system.

Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies.
"There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of
Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."
Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according
to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it
wouldn't have to turn a profit.

A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion
to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private
coverage for most people.

"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass
higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would
have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."
"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with
only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."

[Jack Flash]

Nice article That's the point, at least for me, it 's a business issue that is getting caught up in politics

[mid_nite_poet]

sum eye opening stuff

[beerpongchamp]

Look at the people fighting against it, they are all that old hippy generation scared they are going to lose their retirement.

[admin]

Look at the people fighting against it, they are all that old hippy generation scared they are going to lose their retirement.

This is a diverse board. There are people here of the "old hippie generation"who support changing the health care system and there are people here who oppose changing the health care system. Rather than becoming angry, I highly recommend that you become involved.

[Jack Flash]

Although the health care debate has been characterized as Republican vs Democrat I see it as Corporations vs the little guy.

Here is an example of why

Yesterday, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) finally released a proposal for his committee's health care reform bill -- the framework for the eventual Senate Finance Committee legislation.

Predictably, the Baucus Plan is totally nightmarish. Because he's not the most famous or likely political villain, here's some background.

Baucus controls the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over any legislation that revolves around Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and health care in general. As chairman, Senator Max Baucus enjoys a remarkable degree of power considering that he only represents 960,000 people in Montana.

The Baucus Plan would impose an individual mandate, making it compulsory for everyone to buy a health insurance plan. Mandates are an important step to controlling costs and achieving a universal health care, but mandates should be accompanied by a public health insurance option.

And the Baucus Plan doesn't offer a public insurance option.

So you're basically screwed if you have objections to being forced by the government to hand over a chunk of your monthly income to for profit insurance corporations who heretofore have engaged in practices that included: canceling the policies as soon as you get sick, denying claims, or refusing to pay for life-saving procedures.

Instead, you would have to buy a private insurance policy or be penalized by the federal government like so:

Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level -- about $66,000 for a family of four -- would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.


Let me repeat this another way. Max Baucus wants to force us to hand over billions of dollars in free cash to the private health insurance cartels and if we refuse, we'll be fined thousands of dollars.

Max Baucus is a Democrat

Funny story. Baucus and his staff forgot to delete the name of the author of the plan from the Acrobat version of the document. Whoops!

In the Properties dialogue box of the PDF, in the "author" slot, the name Liz Fowler appears. Fowler is a Baucus staffer who was with the senator in the early part of this decade but left to take a breather in the private sector and only returned to Capitol Hill last year. During her time in the private sector, can you guess where Fowler worked?

She was the VP for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint, the health insurance parent company of Blue Cross.

[cerina]

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

One thing that puzzles me ... Doesn't a mandate making it compulsory for everyone to buy health insurance make the assumption that everyone has an income adequate to the task? And isn't the basis for the present discussion the very fact that there are large numbers of people who do not have such an income or can't get insurance for some other reason?

[charles]

Even the Mexican migrants have better health insurance than you Yanks

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's Health Department says it will launch a pilot program to encourage migrants working in the United States to sign up their families in Mexico for the Mexican government's low-income health insurance program.

The department says the program will start in the state of Colorado, and will eventually be extended to other states, mainly through Mexican consulate.

The "Seguro Popular" insurance program offers low-cost coverage to people not covered by other plans.

The department said in a statement Friday the program was part of a plan to achieve full health coverage for Mexicans by 2012.

Nearly 12 million Mexicans live in the United States.

[cerina]

It's the start of the takeover.

[Jack Flash]

The new Numbers are in and it's worse than most people realized

In 1990, the United States ranked 34th in the world in female mortality
In 2010, the United States ranked 49th in the world in female mortality
This puts it behind all of Western Europe and lower-income countries such as Chile, Tunisia, and Albania.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 013616.htm

[cerina]

Isn't that obscene? How can anyone in the richest country in the world not see that health care reform would change that? Oh, I forgot ... they aren't allowed to see that because the health insurance companies, pharmaco and other industries with a vested interest might lose a few million dollars.

The ridiculous thing is that you have the most modern medicine in the world ... if you can afford to access it.

[mr jimmy]

Isn't that obscene?

It's only obscene because we pay through the nose for it. I pay more in co-payments under Medicare than I used to pay for the doctors bill when I didn't have insurance.

Now the government wants to takeover health care and make it a government institution

[cerina]

As I live in the UK and have a somewhat biaised opinion on state health care and because I really don't want to start a row with anyone ... I'll shut up.

[Don't Blink]

Since I live in the USA and have experienced the benefits of having great insurance as well as the trials and tribulations of having no insurance.

Some facts

(1.) The government will not be taking over Medicare, it already is a government run institution and has been since its inception.

(2.) The high prices that you pay have to do with inflation and the exorbitant prices that corporations charge for their services.

(3.) If you have great health insurance in the United States you have access to the best health care in the world if something goes wrong. But only if health-care insurers don't find some way to rescind your policy, limit their payments or delay treatment.

(4.)Having great insurance is not the same as good medicine. Good medicine includes preventive care, and corporations that are focused on the next quarter's bottom line, are loath to cover that sort of thing. You may not even have a policy with them five years from now, so why pay for preventive care. The government on the other hand, would be interested in preventive care because they may have to cover your ass five years or more down the road.

Here's a shocker; a little while back when I had to have an MRI done and didn't have insurance, it was going to cost me $1800. I went down to Mexico and had it done. The cost for the MRI, the air fare, the weekend stay at the hotel and resort, my bar tab, the meals, the boat rental and car rental all totaled was less than the cost of the MRI alone here in the United States. - And the nurses were smoking hot

[admin]

Good medicine includes preventive care, and corporations that are focused on the next quarter's bottom line, are loath to cover that sort of thing. You may not even have a policy with them five years from now, so why pay for preventive care. The government on the other hand, would be interested in preventive care because they may have to cover you for many years.

Well said, this is what I believe is at the heart of the matter, and is an issue that should be neither Republican nor Democrat. I see that the back room dealing and corporate positioning has already begun and have to wonder if we as Americans, ever get full value for our health dollar?

[Jack Flash]

Good medicine includes preventive care, and corporations that are focused on the next quarter's bottom line, are loath to cover that sort of thing. You may not even have a policy with them five years from now, so why pay for preventive care. The government on the other hand, would be interested in preventive care because they may have to cover you for many years.

One slight correction; with Medicare the Government will have to cover you eventually, and so preventive medicine is in their best interest as a means of reducing the health-care burden for seniors.