Should we return to prior healthcare system

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 ERD50 - How many people need to die then ? Is 5,000 preventable deaths per year enough ? Is 50,000 enough ? One death due to the lack of healthcare is one death too many. You do not need to be poor to make "poor choices". As a healthcare provider, I see bad choices being made everyday by patients - irrespective of their wealth.

To me, this is a MUCH larger problem:

How Common Are Medical Mistakes? - WrongDiagnosis.com

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem The "current political environment" reflects the will of the people, just like the last "current political environment" did. There are strong indications that the new health care law is also not realistic in the "current political environment", so it's not simply a case of "executing the present plan." We're learning (in accordance with some predictions) that is what happens when we try to enact sweeping legislation without a mandate from the people. Social Security had a strong bipartisan and popular mandate, Medicare had a strong bipartisan and popular mandate, but this thing never did. In my view, it's a situation analogous in some ways to the US involvement in Vietnam. It was strongly favored by some political elements, executed based on shaky legislative action (the Gulf of Tonkin resolution) and then pursued despite lack of popular support (though Vietnam initially enjoyed much more public support than the health care law has now). I'm sure some boosters thought public and political support would grow once we got some victories. We got plenty of victories on the battlefield, but the national will and means of execution (on the cheap, based on incorrect assumptions) was always going to prevent a successful outcome. I see some big similarities with where we are now on healthcare. It's better to have the national discussion first, accurately outline realistic limitations on what we are setting out to do, and go into it with strong public support. We have the opportunity to do that with health care, but basing it on this defective law is a bad idea. We've been sold a lot of things lately as items that must be done immediately--let's instead do this right. The "waste" isn't the time we'll spend now, it's the last two years of back-room dealing shady activity. Is anybody proud of this thing we've been given? Our present "system" stinks. As we set out to make things better, let's not deliberately include the linkage between employment and health insurance that is the bane of the present setup. Cost control is a huge issue, let's address it. Let's treat people like adults and let them have choices, which can only work when their own resources are involved. Let's recognize that health care is a unique service, but not so unique that the same market forces that bring us cost control and continuous improvement in every other aspect of our lives some how don't apply to medical care.

Good post....

I will add... the goal of the law was to do something about costs.. at the time there was no mandate on universal coverage... if at the beginning it was stated 'we want to pass a universal coverage program and tax the Americans to a tune of $1 trillion' I think that it would not have gone anywhere....

To me, there are some good things in the bill... but very very little that you could say is cost containment... and a lot that you can call universal coverage....

Heck, keeping kids on policies until 26 make premiums go up... having no preexisting condition make premiums go up... paying 100% for normal screening etc. (can not remember the real name) makes premiums go up..

What in this bill makes premiums go down except the mandate that everyone has to pay in And since everyone at my work already pays in.... it does not do anything to our premiums...

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude To me, this is a MUCH larger problem: How Common Are Medical Mistakes? - WrongDiagnosis.com

Yepper. Medical care is dangerous. You don't see barbers making mistakes like that.

[MichaelB]

Finance Dude: I agree with getting rid of the mandate. We need universal care and single payer. Other option is in some way unworkable. Now, as to “death panels” --- that again?

Dex & ERD: It is so easy to say no. Don’t do anything about this ... because other problems are so much bigger. People suffer and die anyway and all the time – so what’s a few more? Any reason to justify inaction. Why solve this problem when there are so many other problems we’re not solving? The challenge to the Harvard study is especially amusing. Didn’t read it but don’t agree anyway. They must have it wrong. When you choose your own facts I’m guessing they will always support with opinions and leave you quite reassured.

Samclem: Thanks for taking the time to answer and respond.

We had a national conversation. Everyone was invited to join, and many did. We all spent a lot of time yelling and fearmongering. Our political representatives then spent a great deal of time doing the same. Some chose to influence the final product in a positive way, others didn’t. Then they wrote, introduced, debated, obstructed, re-wrote and then passed legislation. Then it was signed into law.

Now it’s time to move on. Only 26% of the people want the reform repealed. The rest want it improved. Almost half (46%) are concerned about cost. What you propose does nothing to deal with that. So, back to what Martha suggested in post 58.

Quote:

I would like our time spend on trying to figure out how to reduce costs, or at least stop the huge inflation in costs. Parts of the health care plan put in place mechanisms to study the cost issues. Let's do that.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Dex & ERD: It is so easy to say no. Don’t do anything about this ... because other problems are so much bigger. People suffer and die anyway and all the time – so what’s a few more? Any reason to justify inaction.

MichealB - I'm going to bow out if your memory is this short. Just a few posts ago (quoted below), you finally agreed that you mis-characterized us as advocating "doing nothing", and now you are right back to that again. You read into this what you want, regardless of what we say.

It takes me a long time, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but you are clearly a brick wall on this issue. You won't convince anyone if you see the need to twist their words and essentially call them heartless. I know you won't 'get this', but we are trying to understand the numbers so we can do the most good for the most people. That is the opposite of being heartless. Some might be satisfied with a 'feel good' statement ( we did something!)- I'd like to know that there is real substance behind it, and that it is truly an overall good, and hopefully something approaching optimal (w/o expecting perfection) - getting the most out of the effort.

Adios on this subject - ERD50

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Quote: Originally Posted by ERD50 Repeating it doesn't make it true. Show me the posts on this forum where people are saying we don't need any changes to the system. That claim was earlier applied to samclem, and that's certainly not true. Fair enough. I’ll retract my earlier statement.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Dex & ERD: It is so easy to say no. Don’t do anything about this ... because other problems are so much bigger. People suffer and die anyway and all the time – so what’s a few more? Any reason to justify inaction. Why solve this problem when there are so many other problems we’re not solving? The challenge to the Harvard study is especially amusing. Didn’t read it but don’t agree anyway. They must have it wrong. When you choose your own facts I’m guessing they will always support with opinions and leave you quite reassured.

The issue isn't inaction - it is what action.

Also, it isn't about "Why solve this problem when there are so many other problems we’re not solving?" it is about are the proposed solutions just moving the problem around, making the 'problem' worse and/or creating new ones and not addressing them, not identifying the underlying causes of health ins. costs and addressing them. Approaching the issue in this way is more difficult and challenging.

[obgyn65]

ok. We agree to disagree. This is America, and it's ok to disagree.

I am afraid I don't have much time to write (I am not retired yet !) to argue the pros of healthcare insurance.

People understand when THEY have to sell their house or go bankrupt because they lost their job and their kid, husband or wife has cancer or leukemia.

Please remember that health problems are not always caused by "bad" (vs. "good") behavior.

Take care everyone and good luck.

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex Approaching the issue in this way is more difficult and challenging.

Yes, and of course, that's the point. Hey, we're not dummies. Make the issue seem so difficult and challenging that no one will want to pursue it. We've seen the tactic so many times.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee Yes, and of course, that's the point. Hey, we're not dummies. Make the issue seem so difficult and challenging that no one will want to pursue it. We've seen the tactic so many times.

Those that care about the needy will pursue the difficult and challenging because they are aware of the pitfalls of the law of unintended consequences and want to avoid it. Those that can not handle the interrelated variables will not. As someone previously stated the good intentions of government helped to destroy the black family. Learning from history and trying to avoid similar mistakes is a difficult and challenging task but one worth taking.

[Alan]

okay folks, this is getting way too political for a health thread, so Porky is going to have to apply some oinkment here.

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"