america' healthcare nightmare

[fight for health]

Mass Medical Clinic's Sobering Message

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp

this is non commercial spam but it is for a good cause

[cerina]

For a first world and highly privileged society to be reduced to offering health care like that is disgusting. It's a good advertisement for supporting proposed health care reforms.

[Lonestar]

For a first world and highly privileged society to be reduced to offering health care like that is disgusting. It's a good advertisement for supporting proposed health care reforms.

This serves to illustrate that the perceived "privilege" and "prosperity" of the United States, isn't the case in all areas of the country. Oh, yes, I'm sitting here on a computer in a relatively sound, comfortable house. But there are still things that my sister and I can't afford. And, there are those who are much, much worse off than we.

I normally eschew political discussions, but I'll say this: We need affordable, accessible health care for everyone. And we should pay for it by spending less on [if not eliminating in a lot of cases] foreign aid. Helping others is good, and just. But we need to take care of our own, first.

[Don't Blink]

In 3 mo when my insurance runs out I'll be in that boat too, unless I can find an employer large enough to carry insurance.

I am amazed when I see these supposedly small employer's saying we can't afford insurance for our employees. Don't make us pay
for it or we will have to lay-off. Who pays the bill when their employee gets hurt and has no health insurance?

If you pay taxes then you do.

[mugley]

Oregon has a similar plan to what is being proposed


By Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff
Video

SPRINGFIELD, Ore. - Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.

An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

But one critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.

"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. But he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

But the medical director at the cancer center where Wagner gets her care said some people may have incredible responses to treatment.

Health plan hasn't evolved?

The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.

Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.

Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.

"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."

Patients like Wagner can appeal a decision if they are denied coverage. Wagner appealed twice but lost both times.

However, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. But doctors told us, that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.
http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

[cerina]

When the British National Health Service was introduced in 1948, a new form of taxation was also introduced (National Insurance Contributions) which are deducted at source from your salary. The amount paid depends on your income, but the quality of health care available to you is, theoretically, the same no matter what your income. There are anomalies in that some aspects of care may be more easily available in one area of the country than they are in another but the basic principle is that care is free at the point of need.

There are private health insurances available but, at the moment, even if you are privately insured you still have to pay your NI contributions. Although we gripe and moan about it, and I know it isn't the best system in the world, it generally works well. What people don't realise is that healthcare is a bottomless pit and there are always new, and therefore expensive, treatments available. Decisions have to be made on what therapies to offer and it is when the decision is made not to include a particular treatment on the grounds of cost that hackles rise. To be able to afford to offer the most up-to-date treatements available our contributions would need to increase and it appears that people are more prepared to moan about the service than they are willing to pay for it.

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, managing the health service and providing appropriate care is a juggling act. As in the case mugley gave us above, while for an individual and a family the chance of improving a person's health or length of life is of paramount importance, the amount it costs has to be weighed against how many other patients are being deprived of life-enhancing or life saving treatments because one person may live a few weeks or months longer given a particular treatment.

The people we should be complaining about aren't the healthcare providers but the pharmaceutical companies that charge extortionate amounts for their medicines.

[sara small]

In Britain the infant mortality rate -- the number of babies per 1,000 live births who die -- is 4.85. In Canada, it's 5.04.

In the United States, with "the best healthcare in the world" , our rate is 6.26, putting us right between Cuba and the Faroe Islands.

About one baby per thousand worse than Canada. Which may not seem like much.

Unless it's your baby

[Jack Flash]

House and Senate Bill Link: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/hous ... bills.html

Here are a few one liners from the House health bill:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt. will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30, Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT. COMMITTEE that decides what treatment you get.

Pg 29, lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42, of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose YOUR Health Care Benefits for you. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!

PG 50, Section 152 - Health Care will be provided to ALL NON-US CITIZENS, ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE!

Pg 58, - Govt. will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59, lines 21-24 - Govt. will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

PG 65, Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).

Pg 72, Lines 8-14 - Govt. is creating a Health Care Exchange to bring private Health Care Plans under Govt. control.

Pg 84, Sec 203 HC bill - Govt. mandates ALL b enefit packages for private Health Care Plans in the Exchange.

Pg 85, Line 7 - Specifics for Benefit Levels for Plans = the govt. will ration your Health Care!

Pg 91, Lines 4-7 - Govt. mandates linguistic appropriate services, i.e, translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95, Lines 8-18 - The govt. will use groups, i.e., ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for govt. HC plan.

Pg 85, Line 7 - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members, your health care WILL be rationed.

Pg 102, Lines 12-18 - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. NO CHOICE.

Pg 124, lines 24-25 - No company can sue GOVT. on price fixing. No judicial review against Govt. Monopoly.

Pg 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors/AMA, the Govt. will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145, Line 15-17 - An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 126, Lines 22-25 - Employers MUST pay for Health Care for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149, Lines 16-24 - ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Pg 150, Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who doesn’t provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Pg 167, Lines 18-23 - ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable Health Care according to the govt. will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170, Lines 1-3 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Pg 195, HC Bill - officers & employees of HC Admin. (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.

Pg 203, Line 14-15 - The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax. (Yes, it says that!)

Pg 239, Line 14-24 - Govt. will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be affected.

Pg 241, Line 6-8 - Doctors, it doesn't matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 253, Line 10-18 - Govt. sets the value of a doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, the value of humans.

Pg 265, Sec 1131 - Govt. mandates & controls productivity for private Health Care industries.

Pg 268, Sec 1141 - Federal Govt. regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Pg 272, SEC. 1145 - TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS. Cancer patients, welcome to rationing!

Pg 280, Sec 1151 - The Govt. will penalize hospitals for what the Govt. deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298, Lines 9-11 - Doctors, if you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a miss read, the Govt. will penalize you.

Pg 317, L 13-20 - OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt. tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318, lines 21-25,1-3 - PROHIBITION on expansion. Govt. is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 321, 2-13 - Hospitals have an opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can you20say ACORN?!!

Pg 335, L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt. mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want it. Rationing.

Pg 341, Lines 3-9 - Govt. has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into the Govt. plan.

Pg 354, Sec 1177 - Govt. will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

Pg 379, Sec 1191 - Govt. creates more bureaucracy; Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?

Pg 425, Lines 4-12 - Govt. mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life (assisted suicide).

Pg 425, Lines 17-19 - Govt. will instruct & consult regarding Living Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney. Mandatory!

Pg 425, Lines 22-25, PG 426, Lines 1-3 - Govt. provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Pg 427, Lines 15-24 - Govt. mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt. has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429, Lines 1-9 - An Advanced Care Planning Consultation (assisted suicide) will be used frequently as patient's health deteriorates.

Pg 429, Lines 10-12 - Advanced Care Consultation may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from YOUR GOVERNMENT!!

Pg 429, Lines 13-25 - The govt. will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Pg 430, Lines 11-15 - The govt. will decide what level of treatment you will have at the end of YOUR life.

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services are Non-profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!

Pg 472, Lines 14-17 - PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. One monthly payment to a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Pg 489, Sec 1308 - The govt. will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert govt. into your marriage.

Pg 494-498 - Govt. will cover Mental Health Services, including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

HOW'S THAT HOPEY, CHANGEY THING WORKING OUT FOR YA NOW?






I got this email form a co-worker who spammed it out to everyone at the office. Here is my response:

I appreciate your concern on this issue, and I respect your view of the situation. However, I feel you should know a few things. (I apologize for it being so long, but please read it)

1.This is not a "Healthcare" overhaul, it's the addition of a government funded Health Insurance Plan and new regulations on the Health Insurance Industry. You WILL NOT be forced to enroll in this plan, but the insurance companies WILL be forced to compete with a more fairly priced plan from the government. The points at the end of your email concerning being forced to do anything are both intentionally misrepresenting the bill and attempting to spread fear through propaganda. This is a common technique used by lobbyists, the Insurance Industry and the members of Congress who are in their pockets (lobbying dollars from Health Insurance Agencies to Congress are at an all-time high).
Not to mention, this line: "The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer." is just absolutely ridiculous. No government would ever attempt this. It'd be a heinous intrusion on the rights of its citizens and there would be mass riots and chaos. This is also an obviously gross exaggeration of the wording of the bill, meant to scare you into opposing reform.

Also: "Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage." This is a blatant misrepresentation. Look at the wording: "government will cover marriage and family therapy." Meaning they will pay for it. Not "intervene in your marriage". More scare tactics.

"Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends." This is not the wording of the bill. The bill provides the optional service to the elderly, who wish to plan the last years of their life (called a "living will"). This is not, in any way, shape, or form the government telling you when, how, or where your life ends.

"The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." You will have a choice. This bill will not get rid of the private insurers, so if you don't like the government-paid plan, you can still get health insurance through a private company!

Nothing about the healthcare system will change, except for who is paying for it. Instead of the bill going to your Private Insurance company, it would go to the government instead (if you choose that plan). You get to keep your doctor, doctors get to have their own private practices, physician services (and the money they make) will not change, and so on. And, it's cheaper for the average American!

1.As far as bureaucracy is concerned, we are already in way over our heads. The current U.S. Health Insurance system sees about 30-35% of every dollar being spent on paperwork and overhead costs (such as CEO bonuses, etc.). That number is far greater than any other Health Insurance system (including Canada, France, Sweden, and all those other universal systems). Also, if you recall, we currently have a government run Health Insurance system, but only for the elderly (see: Medicare).

2.There has been much talk of potential "rationing" of Healthcare, where the government would effectively choose your treatment (or lack thereof). This would, in fact, be no different than the current system, where the Insurance Industry weighs the "profitability" of treating you, and reserves the right to deny you treatment (by not paying for it) when they would be losing money. In fact, it has been policy of these companies to actually award larger bonuses to employees who deny healthcare claims! An example is this story, where a 17 year old girl was denied a liver transplant by her insurance company. The difference here is the government would be rationing only elective procedures, not life-and-death ones such as an organ transplant or chemotherapy (as insurance companies do now)

3.As far as the funding is concerned, the people who benefit from this overhaul will not be taxed to pay for it. The proposed tax is >on the wealthiest 1% of people, who controlled approximately $16.8 trillion in total wealth in 2008 (about $2 trillion more than the lowest 90% total). Also, these ultra-wealthy pay an historically low amount of taxes for having such wealth (some pay about 15% in taxes, lower than most working-class Americans!).

4.This bill is also a matter of economic urgency. Consider these numbers:

-- 50 million Americans are uninsured (or 1 in 6) -- in 2008, 1/5 of every household's income went to health-care costs (this number has gone up since the stock market dropped and foreclosures increased) -- speaking of foreclosures, approximately 40% of all private >bankruptcies (not companies) are due to >medical bills accumulated due to lack of insurance.

In all, wasted about an hour of my time, but I hit 'reply all' and many people appreciated the well-thought out and logical arguments made

[cerina]

I would consider that a well spent hour, mapps, if it were not for the fact that the idiot who sent you the original email is never likely to see the truth in what you wrote.

[Jack Flash]

Unfortunately as a self-employed individual with a pre-existing condition (but not life threatening) I am all too familiar with the shortcomings of the American healthcare system. I am fortunate in that I have enough money to pay for doctors visits, because I can not obtain reasonable health insurance.

I have my family covered under private healthcare insurance, but my only option is to pay for services out of pocket.

[jacques]

Americans calmly discussing health care lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juSS_xkyQ1w

[cerina]

I'd hate to see them when they get worked up about something.

[admin]

Some Truths About Healthcare in America


The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.

Source
Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations National Academies of Science

comments
That does not make it wrong if the country's health care needs are being met.


The government directly covers 27.8% of the population through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor

Source
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.U.S. Census Bureau. Issued August 2008..

comments
The very poor, the disabled and the elderly are already covered. So basically universal healthcare would extend coverage to the working poor.


Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. However, this unfunded mandate has contributed to an increasingly strained health care safety net .

Source
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesEmergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act.

comments
We as taxpayers and employers already foot the bill for unfunded healthcare. Universal health care would allow for preventave rather than emergency services. Preventive medicine has a much higher cost benefit ratio.


Certain types of medical spending and particularly health insurance benefit from significant tax subsidies; in particular, employer-sponsored health insurance is a non-taxable benefit.

Source
Internal Revenue Service (pdf)

comments
This tax break should be available to everyone with an insurance policy.

Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at more than 15% of GDP, a greater portion than in any other United Nations member state except for East Timor .

SourceSource
World Health Organization

comments
We are not getting our moneys worth. If universal health does not pass, we still need to fix a system that is inefficient at best and broken at worst.


Many fiscal conservatives in the US (not social conservatives) favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less per person on healthcare. Thus universal health care would allow the U.S. to reduce medical spending as a portion of GDP, which would in turn make the nation’s goods and services more competitive.

SourceSource
A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage, Randall Hoven, December 12, 2007

comments
This for me is the crux of the matter. We as a county have become non competitive, and this is due in part to our healthcare system. If private insurance would competitively and efficently fill the needs of the population for healthcare then that would be my first choice. However, public healthcare insurance as an alternative insurance option, is the only choice that seems viable at the moment. Maybe somewhere there is a 3rd choice but it hasn’t been voiced yet. Doing nothing, as anyone in preventive medicine will tell you, will only make things worse.


More information on this subject can be found at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care]Wikipidia Health
Care[/url]


Honest and civil debate is always welcome. My comments are just my opinions - nothing more.

[taxie mom]

My sister had heath insurance but her insurance cancled when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

[cerina]

It seems that even the private healthcare systems in the US and UK work differently.

Here, if you apply for private health insurance and there is a pre-existing condition, you can still get insurance but not for that particular condition or you can't make a claim for that condition for a certain period, usually two years. Other conditions are covered as long as they aren't related to the pre-existing one.

For example, if you have a heart condition, you could still get insurance but you wouldn't be covered if you needed treatment for that condition. You would, however, be covered if you developed cancer or some other condition that wasn't linked. Okay, your premiums would probably be higher because of the heart condition, but you would still be able to buy cover.

With the National Health Service, there is no such thing as treatment being refused for a pre-existing condition. Yes, there are some treatments that are not funded, or that you have to fight for if it is not available in your post code area but, from what I have heard, that applies to the US model of insurance anyway. If a treatment is going to be too expensive you either don't get told it is a possibility or it is refused.

I am sure there is no such thing as a perfect health care service but there must be better than you have now, surely?

[mugley]

stole this from a friend of mine on another board,

I, like many Dems, dream of a full health care system available to everyone equally. I dream of a retirement system that takes away the worry of being a burden and the fear of not being able to survive at the very time in life that you no longer have the strength and skills to support yourself. I dream of a justice systems that is fair and that treats all the same.

I honestly think that most us (right and left) dream those dreams. The Devil is in the details and execution.

I don't know what is in all of those pages and I doubt that many do. Therefore I have to assume some things and rely on what I hear from those who do know parts.

Based upon my limited knowledge (of the bill but extensive knowledge of our current healthcare system), I have some very big concerns in several areas.

One of the areas is cost. The $1.2 trillion annual price tag could pay current full high end private insurance rates for 100 million people. Where is the reform savings? Where are the extended benefits? It has none of those things yet costs twice as much because no ones estimate says there are 100 million uninsured. Add to that the low balling of every govt effort ever and the real cost is probably higher for something inferior to what that money would buy.

Further, a major cost factor for private insurance is the cost shifting that accompanies Medicare and Medicaid. It drives up the cost to privately covered people. Well, covering all people the same should reduce the shifting and materially lower the existing cost of private insurance. Thus, the price tag is even more wasteful than my example on a level playing field. Where is that money going?

My second concern is there is no real transition from our current status to the new one. Oh yes, there are to be many bridges to make sure things transcend. BUT, how about this one: someone gives up about 26 years of their life to study hard in elementary school through defering their life until the end of residency. They face education and lost revenue costs that can exceed $500k easily if not $1 million. Are they not entitled to something to compensate them for that investment? Should we condemn them like property and pay fair compensation for what is being taken?

Regardless of our answer, we are throwing a major disincentive to practicing medicine meaning we are going to lower the common denominator just like we have on every other application we have governmentized. It will not show up for about a generation but our medical care is not going to get better at the top because no fool is going to be willing to sacrifice what it takes to get there.

In our current system, bureaucrats at insurance companies do make life and death decisions over finance. The government doing that is not really different--except for one thing, we can change insurance companies when they are not responsive.

I believed and still believe that with good planning, we could create a model healthcare system. That planning would involve doctors, hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, the public, private employers, the government, the bar, etc.

I believe that we could create a system that limited the costs associated with malpractice without destroying our system of legal recourse.

I believe that we could lower drug costs by absorbing part of the development costs like we do with the military. I think we could do that without favoring vendors and/or putting drug companies out of business.

(Believe it or not, we already have the legal rights to seize a patent thereby eliminating those costs if we so chose. We would have to compensate the drug company fairly but that would still lower the return on investment and save money because the ROI in a risky drug development might be 30% where the govt. ROI is more like an inflation number of 3%.)

We could lower hospital costs significantly by reforming misuse of emergency rooms and stop the cost shifting. In Wake County as we speak you can go to an emergency room for about $800 or go to an urgent care center staffed by the same doctors for about $90. The cost difference ain't the doctors it is all of the built in systems necessary for true emergenices. Unfortunately a lot of emergency room use is by the uninsured, the illegal alien, the headaches at night, etc. Real emergencies cost money but we could save greatly by having systems and clinics in place to sort out the sick from those who need emergency care.

I could go on and on but my point would be the same. Rather than a balanced rational plan of attack that is vetted, the current bill is a rush to finish of a lot of half-baked staff ideas from the left that do not stand up in the light of day no matter how well intentioned.

[ffh]

It is a good thing when people respond with a dialogue. Since you took the time to respond. Let me go through this point-by-point.

I, like many Dems, dream of a full health care system available to everyone equally. I dream of a retirement system that takes away the worry of being a burden and the fear of not being able to survive at the very time in life that you no longer have the strength and skills to support yourself. I dream of a justice systems that is fair and that treats all the same.

- I think Democrats and Republicans and everyone, with the exception of libertarians would like to see a system like this.


I don't know what is in all of those pages and I doubt that many do. Therefore I have to assume some things and rely on what I hear from those who do know parts.

- Relying on others to interpret the bill for you leads to misinformation. Here is the bill online http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf


Based upon my limited knowledge (of the bill but extensive knowledge of our current healthcare system), I have some very big concerns in several areas.

One of the areas is cost. The $1.2 trillion annual price tag could pay current full high end private insurance rates for 100 million people. Where is the reform savings? Where are the extended benefits? It has none of those things yet costs twice as much because no ones estimate says there are 100 million uninsured. Add to that the low balling of every govt effort ever and the real cost is probably higher for something inferior to what that money would buy.

- With the current population of the United States at 340 million. A 100 million would be almost a third of the population. The problem of access to health care is bad but it is not that bad. 100 million people without access to health care would truly be a crisis. I do not know where the 1.2 trillion dollar annual price tag comes from, as it is not in any government document. To what extended benefits is the writer referring? Are we referring to nursing care or disability? The government to some degree or the other already covers both of those.

Further, a major cost factor for private insurance is the cost shifting that accompanies Medicare and Medicaid. It drives up the cost to privately covered people. Well, covering all people the same should reduce the shifting and materially lower the existing cost of private insurance. Thus, the price tag is even more wasteful than my example on a level playing field. Where is that money going?

- A claim is made that by covering the poor and the elderly with Medicaid and Medicare, costs are shifted to private insurance. I don't honestly see how that could be as the government usually takes on those with the most expensive medical needs. You also have to ask yourself, if private insurance would be willing to embrace the elderly by offering affordable private insurance policies. I think we all know the answer to that one, and I don't blame the insurance companies because the elderly to require a lot of care.

- Also these two sentences do not jive
“It drives up the cost to privately covered people.”
“Well, covering all people the same should reduce the shifting and materially lower the existing cost of private insurance.”

My second concern is there is no real transition from our current status to the new one. Oh yes, there are to be many bridges to make sure things transcend. BUT, how about this one: someone gives up about 26 years of their life to study hard in elementary school through deferring their life until the end of residency. They face education and lost revenue costs that can exceed $500k easily if not $1 million. Are they not entitled to something to compensate them for that investment? Should we condemn them like property and pay fair compensation for what is being taken?

- What type of transition would be considered real transition? I'm sorry but that question is not specific enough for me to give an answer.

- Everyone who goes for a doctorate degree puts in 12 years of high school plus, 8 years or more of college and very likely to a more years of internship. Highly skilled people will always be in demand. I personally do not believe that we should guarantee them a certain level of income. Should we guarantee the income of a chemist, a lawyer or a professor?


Regardless of our answer, we are throwing a major disincentive to practicing medicine meaning we are going to lower the common denominator just like we have on every other application we have governmentized. It will not show up for about a generation but our medical care is not going to get better at the top because no fool is going to be willing to sacrifice what it takes to get there.

- No one to my knowledge has suggested that doctors work for the government. Rather, it is that the government will offer the role of insurance provider as an option to private insurance. I am sure quite a few medical practitioners are concerned about their income. However, private insurers negotiate with medical providers to reduce the bill just as the government negotiates with medical providers.

In our current system, bureaucrats at insurance companies do make life and death decisions over finance. The government doing that is not really different--except for one thing, we can change insurance companies when they are not responsive.

- That is a claim that has often been made by insurance companies. The reality is that the company one works for, more often than not, decides which insurance company will cover their employees. In addition, those who have pre-existing conditions cannot change insurance companies if they can get insurance at all.


I believed and still believe that with good planning, we could create a model healthcare system. That planning would involve doctors, hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, the public, private employers, the government, the bar, etc.

- A general statement of opinion, unfortunately that is not what has happened. This is a goal of the AMA (American Medical Association) straight from their press releases. It is an admirable goal, but we seem to have trouble getting there.

I believe that we could create a system that limited the costs associated with malpractice without destroying our system of legal recourse.

- A general statement of opinion, unfortunately that is not what has happened. This is a goal of the AMA (American Medical Association) straight from their press releases. It is an admirable goal, but we seem to have trouble getting there.

I believe that we could lower drug costs by absorbing part of the development costs like we do with the military. I think we could do that without favoring vendors and/or putting drug companies out of business.

- Government funding of development costs by pharmaceutical companies would also add to the deficit. However is something that has been done for years by pharmaceutical companies. In many cases they are given grants through the university system, to study promising medicines.

(Believe it or not, we already have the legal rights to seize a patent thereby eliminating those costs if we so chose. We would have to compensate the drug company fairly but that would still lower the return on investment and save money because the ROI in a risky drug development might be 30% where the govt. ROI is more like an inflation number of 3%.)

- That has never been done, because we live in a capitalist system. There would have to be an extreme crisis before anything like that would be considered.

We could lower hospital costs significantly by reforming misuse of emergency rooms and stop the cost shifting. In Wake County as we speak you can go to an emergency room for about $800 or go to an urgent care center staffed by the same doctors for about $90. The cost difference ain't the doctors it is all of the built in systems necessary for true emergenices. Unfortunately a lot of emergency room use is by the uninsured, the illegal alien, the headaches at night, etc. Real emergencies cost money but we could save greatly by having systems and clinics in place to sort out the sick from those who need emergency care.

- The emergency rooms are used because hospitals by law cannot turn away a patient. Urgent care centers on the other hand, are privately run and can turn away patients if they do not have the ability to pay. If you do not have the ability to pay then you go where you cannot be turned away. This is an excellent example of the inefficiencies of our system. If people had somewhere to go for standard treatment they would not tie up emergency services.


I could go on and on but my point would be the same. Rather than a balanced rational plan of attack that is vetted, the current bill is a rush to finish of a lot of half-baked staff ideas from the left that do not stand up in the light of day no matter how well intentioned.

- What would be your alternative proposal to provide health care, or are you saying that we do not need to change the system?

[J Mc Neil]

This is not what I was looking for when I typed fun forum but it is something my wife and I have talked about a lot lately. We have four children all of whonm are gainfully employed. The only one who is offered insurance is our eldest who works for the state government.
Our daughter has been able to buy insurance on her own but the co-payments are 50%
We have three granchildren, and only one is covered by insurance. That makes us loose sleep.

I've voted republican since Eisenhower, but when healthcare is mentioned and I say anything about wanting healthcare for my children my rebublican friends think my minds going. They're old farts like me so who cares.

This is a story from Drudge report It's a national embarrisment is what it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72580.html


Can't you people make those letters and numbers thing a bit eaiser

[cerina]

We like to offer a variety of subjects on here, J McNeil, but the main principle of the forum is fun, fun and more fun.




Since this subject heavily hit the headlines, I have been following it quite closely and also looked into the healthcare provision in other countries. No one system is perfect, but the German system seems pretty good to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Germany

[Jack Flash]

I've voted republican since Eisenhower, but when healthcare is mentioned and I say anything about wanting healthcare for my children my rebublican friends think my minds going. They're old farts like me so who cares.

This is a story from Drudge report It's a national embarrisment is what it is.

I hear what your sayin. I usually lean toward libertarian view point (minimal government intervention). Free enterprise works best when it is truly free and competitive. But I've come to the personal conclusion that health and insurance interests have colluded to provide an inferior product at exorbitant prices. There is no will in government to use the anti-monopoly laws so health-care reform seems like the only option.

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009

For me this is a business decision rather than a political decision.

Would anyone pay twice as much for cars to keep US car dealers in business?

Would anyone pay twice for a website that wasn't significantly better?

Why should I purchase overpriced medical services? Why should I have to buy medical supplies from Canada because medicine is 3 times as much here in the US?

btw if you make it back, there is no political litmus test for laughter - think about joining

[3i2wl]

Sneaky Yanks

We were duped': Two British women tricked into becoming stars of campaign to sabotage Obama's healthcare reforms
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... forms.html

[Jack Flash]

Turns out the Unions don't want healthcare reform, and as a major contributor to most democrats
they may be able to stop the process. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sspencer/2009/08/14/how-to-kill-a-union-in-three-easy-steps/

[cerina]

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

[Lonestar]

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.