Health Care Bill It's about Fire and Money

[Trek]

Having experience with both the German and Estonian health systems (which are very different from each other) I'll add one thing that seems to help lower overall cost.

In both systems, the doctors assess you and then start you with the least expensive treatment option that they believe will fix you before they move up to the more expensive treatment options.

To be clear though, they start you with the cheapest option they believe will help you, not just the cheapest option. Because it would be more expensive in the long run if they treat you with something that won't work and then have to treat you again after that.

Also to tie in is the lawsuit issue. The doctors don't have to run unnecessary tests or use expensive unnecessary procedures because they're not constantly trying to cover their ass in case of a lawsuit. I'm not certain how malpractice is handled in either country but I found this info on Germany, though it's not official.

Law and Medicine: Germany

 

[armor99]

'

I think we are equal enough in the US to be able to provide a mechanism to pay for health care for everyone. People shouldn't die because they can't pay. Now they do.

I have been away for a while, but I thought I would comment on this one... Ok... I can see your point of view. You have made yourself very clear here. No one should die because of their inability to pay. I understand and respect your point of view.

If that point of view is consistant, then you must feel exactly the same way about housing, clothing, and food. Lack of any of those things will make you just as dead as lack of healthcare. In some cases... they might make you dead even FASTER, than lack of healthcare. So if we follow this logical line of reasoning out to it's conclusion, then you really would be in favor of socialism. As that is really the only way to ensure what you have said that you wanted. If govt. does not have total control over the population, then there will always be those that will choose to "do their own thing". The only way to achieve your stated goal is for a socialist govt to make sure everyone does what they are told to do. And in that way they will ensure the maximum positive outcome for everyone.

 

[Martha]

I have been away for a while, but I thought I would comment on this one... Ok... I can see your point of view. You have made yourself very clear here. No one should die because of their inability to pay. I understand and respect your point of view.

If that point of view is consistant, then you must feel exactly the same way about housing, clothing, and food. Lack of any of those things will make you just as dead as lack of healthcare. In some cases... they might make you dead even FASTER, than lack of healthcare. So if we follow this logical line of reasoning out to it's conclusion, then you really would be in favor of socialism. As that is really the only way to ensure what you have said that you wanted. If govt. does not have total control over the population, then there will always be those that will choose to "do their own thing". The only way to achieve your stated goal is for a socialist govt to make sure everyone does what they are told to do. And in that way they will ensure the maximum positive outcome for everyone.

I disagree on believing what I believe is socialism. Socialism is owning the means of production. Every society has some redistribution of wealth. Public education is a big example. I have no kids but I pay school taxes. Some redistribution goes to the very wealthy. Some goes to business (sugar subsidies anyone?) Some is inter generational. Even insurance is redistribution of wealth. Suburbs with their high infrastructure costs are supported by more than suburban dwellers. I could go on and on.

I believe it is healthy for society to take care of our weakest members and is the right thing to do. I believe in providing certain minimums for people. Food stamps for food. Housing assistance, even if it is only SRO housing. Some small cash assistance so people can clean and dress themselves. And more importantly, assistance in helping overcome the issues that led to the need for the assistance. The goal, if possible, is to help people become healthy happy productive members of society. Providing no assistance at all is not motivating, it is debilitating.

To me it is about values.

 

[modhatter]

It is amazing to me how people can be so gullible. You are parroting Fox News when you spew out words like "socialized medicine", and death to the seniors. You are being manipulated and outsmarted. I wish I could afford to send every citizen in the US a copy of one of Bill Moyer's Journal segments with Wendell Potter. It was the best segment to ever reach the airway on this subject. You should go over to PBS or YouTube and watch what you can of it. It comes from the horse’s mouth. An executive from Cigna whose job it was to do the dirty deed, instill fear into the public, discredit Michael Moore (who he says was right on) and introduce all the scare tactic statements including the terrible wait times in Canada.

This is a well oiled and funded campaign to fool you guys. Have you gone on some of the Canadian message boards and asked Canadians what they think of their health care system? That might be a good idea. Do you know who the most celebrated Canadian hero is? It is the man responsible for passing government funded health care in Canada. He is their Abraham Lincoln. The "wait" is for people who do not have life threatening disease. If a brain cancer is suspected, you go to the head of the class for your MRI. Yes, some people who can afford it might elect to go to the US to get their procedure done faster, and some do. But for the most part, Canadians are very grateful for their health care.

Better yet. Look at the French system. Have you talked with some Parisians lately about the French health care system? (Rated # 1 in the world) I'll give you a clue. They feel sorry for Americans.

Take a look at who doesn't want a public plan:

1. Most doctors (not all luckily) - Less money for them (reduced payments similar to Medicare reduced payments) How will they ever survive.

2. Hospitals: (with a few exceptions-those who furnish life saving services to people without insurance like Chemo and dialysis etc) Lower payments similar to Medicare payments for more patients. Might not be able to make as much money.

3. Insurance Companies. No explanation needed here.

4. Any industry that makes money from our current system, like the one that made the video posted above.

I agree, there are a few problems that need to be addressed that would help everyone in the medical field, and one of the main ones is tort reform. But as the legislators are primarily lawyers, I doubt that we will live to see that happen in our life time anyway.

I have cancer, and I have Medicare with a supplemental policy. I spent a month in the hospital at MD Anderson and my bill was about $125,000. I believe it cost me a total of $159., so I can't really complain about Medicare. ("Socialized medicine") Don't know if I could say that if I was still on my not so good public plan.

This fight is also political and you all know it. The Republicans wanting to destroy the Democratic Party, so they can get the power back and keep their jobs...We are the pawns in the game.

 

[ERD50]

It is amazing to me how people can be so gullible. You are parroting Fox News when you spew out words like "socialized medicine", and death to the seniors.

To me, it is you that sound like a parrot for the left when you say:

This is a well oiled and funded campaign to fool you guys.

and:

I wish I could afford to send every citizen in the US a copy of one of Bill Moyer's Journal segments with Wendell Potter.

It was linked here. I was not impressed. It just fed on some people's fear and loathing of capitalists (and I do think they should be jailed if they do wrong).

I don't belong to any of the groups you mention, and I am skeptical of the govt plan. What do you make of that? I suspect that the Canadian govt plan works as well as it does because it is not a US Govt plan. Didn't Canada do a Cash for Clunkers program? $300 instead of $3500 and $4500? Did it run out of cash in 4 days? Maybe there is something to learn there?

I can't really complain about Medicare.

Isn't our govt telling us that Medicare is unsustainable? So how does that help future generations? Send my kids, and any future grandkids a Thank You note.

The Republicans wanting to destroy the Democratic Party, so they can get the power back and keep their jobs...

Are you saying the opposite is not true?

We are the pawns in the game.

Ahhh, finally, we agree!

-ERD50

 

[DallasGuy]

This is a well oiled and funded campaign to fool you guys. Have you gone on some of the Canadian message boards and asked Canadians what they think of their health care system? That might be a good idea. Do you know who the most celebrated Canadian hero is? It is the man responsible for passing government funded health care in Canada. He is their Abraham Lincoln. The "wait" is for people who do not have life threatening disease. If a brain cancer is suspected, you go to the head of the class for your MRI. Yes, some people who can afford it might elect to go to the US to get their procedure done faster, and some do. But for the most part, Canadians are very grateful for their health care.

Are there any Canadians that can tell us how they like their health care system? If this has already been discussed in any other threads, I apologize in advance.

I just got back from a vacation to Vancouver and Whistler, BC, Canada. While there I asked 5-6 Canadians how they like their health care system and they all liked it. Admittedly this is not a scientific poll, but I was just curious about how a few people in Canada would respond to that question. I asked them if medical lawsuits are possible and they said yes, but those are very limited....no lottery win in Canada when a medical treatment doesn't go according to plan. There is always a risk when getting medical treatment. Perhaps that is one of the first things that can be "fixed" here in the US by limiting the awards in medical lawsuits. On the downside, they do pay more in taxes to support health care in Canada.

Any comments from Canadians?

 

[haha]

There is always a risk when getting medical treatment. Perhaps that is one of the first things that can be "fixed" here in the US by limiting the awards in medical lawsuits. On the downside, they do pay more in taxes to support health care in Canada.

Any comments from Canadians?

Tha cannot be fixed under a Democrat regime. Democrats need bodies for votes- big unions, teachers, governemnt workers of all stripes other than military. They also need large donors-Wall Street, part of Silicon Valley and Trial lawyers.

The Cash for clunkers was for the UAW and Obama Motors. Not messing with malpractice is a a gift to the trial lawyers. Don't expect that to change.

Obama may be a statesman, but of course that has limits.

Ha

 

[modhatter]

HaHa,

Medicare is not sustainable, nor is our current health care system as a whole. There is massive fraud and the gov has been funding the medicare advantage program, and there have been abuses in over-testing. All of the above have been adressed with proposed fixes in the bill. They are trying to address the waste and fix it. They are also trying to make it so insurance companies can't get rid of the sick and keep the healthy.

Don't forget. The insurance companies don't want to cover you when you reach 65 yrs. old. That's when you start to need expensive care. They want to give that part to the government, purge the sick, and refuse you if you have a pre-existing condition whenever they can. I would call that cherry picking at it's best, and hardly a model for good insurance.

There is no argument that this must be funded. But the only way to be able to fund it without adding deficit is a complete overhaul. As I stated in my earlier post. The only item I see they won't touch is the tort reform, which is a shame. They also compromised with the pharmaceutical companies not to restrict pricing and agreed to the 12 years for patent protection. This was done in a trade for money funded for the donut hole. A help, but not as big as it could have been with reduced drug costs.

I probably shouldn't have made the Fox, Democrat, Republican statement, as I really would like to see political party taken out of this issue. It is just too important to be "party driven". This is an issue that effects everybody, and must be decided on the merits of the bill and the goal, not the party.

 

[Gone4Good]

You are parroting Fox News . . .

Didn't Canada do a Cash for Clunkers program? $300 instead of $3500 and $4500? Did it run out of cash in 4 days? Maybe there is something to learn there?

It was FOX News where I first heard Health Care reform being equated with Cash for Clunkers.

Comedy Central even spoofed it.

 

[ERD50]

It was FOX News where I first heard Health Care reform being equated with Cash for Clunkers.

Comedy Central even spoofed it.

I judge things by their content, not where they were published. I prefer not to limit myself in that way. I assume there is bias no matter the source. That cynicism has served me well.

SNL did a spoof of Julia Child, so I guess she was a lousy cook?

Are you saying the Canada Cash for Clunkers was not $300? I read it on this forum, didn't research it further since it wasn't *that* important to me, and I could see no reason that one of our Canadian posters would have any reason to lie about it. Or that C$C wasn't warning about running out of cash in 4 days? Are those wrong? Sources please.

-ERD50

 

[Gone4Good]

SNL did a spoof of Julia Child, so I guess she was a lousy cook?

Nope. Not my point.

Only in arguing against a post that started with "You're parroting Fox News" you parroted Fox News in your response.

Just thought it was funny.

 

[ERD50]

Nope. Not my point.

Only in arguing against a post that started with "You're parroting Fox News" you parroted Fox News in your response.

Just thought it was funny.

Except that I absolutely did NOT "parrot Fox News". I came to a conclusion based on information I have read, critiqued and analyzed from several sources. That is not "parroting".

If Fox News, or anyone else said something similar, I have no control over that. It neither validates nor invalidates my response.

If you don't understand the difference between expressing an idea and "parroting", well, I think that is sad.

It would also explain many of your posts.

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

It was FOX News where I first heard Health Care reform being equated with Cash for Clunkers.

Comedy Central even spoofed it.

Yeah, on the Daily Show, which is definitely not a paragon of objective commentary either. Listen to the reaction of the audience some time. It's a WAY left-tilting crowd, and the show's producers know their audience.

Still, there are enough differences between health care and "cash for clunkers" that it's not really a good direct comparison in my opinion. But it does have some validity, I think; it shows very well how much you increase the demand for something when you heavily subsidize it with tax dollars.

We're getting pretty close to personal attacks in this thread recently, folks. Let's try to keep cooler heads. Thanks.

 

[ERD50]

We're getting pretty close to personal attacks in this thread recently, folks. Let's try to keep cooler heads. Thanks.

Agreed, thanks for the gentle warning. It's easy to get a little excited and carried away on a topic that may affect us so much.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

I have cancer, and I have Medicare with a supplemental policy. I spent a month in the hospital at MD Anderson and my bill was about $125,000. I believe it cost me a total of $159., so I can't really complain about Medicare. ("Socialized medicine") Don't know if I could say that if I was still on my not so good public plan.

Hopefully under our new govt plan, private supplementals (for the rich and priviliged who can afford them) will NOT be allowed. Recently developed, expensive treatments for previously life ending diseases can be witheld to achieve cost savings as mandated by the Congressional Committe on Allowed Treatments.

I'm curious, which public plan did you previously have that was "not so good?" Were you a Canadian or have you lived in some other country with a public plan? Or are you talking about some USA state provided plan?

 

[ziggy29]

Hopefully under our new govt plan, private supplementals (for the rich and priviliged who can afford them) will NOT be allowed.

Why do you say "hopefully"? Do you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to spend money on legal products as they see fit?

Or is the fear that if these "supplementals" are allowed, many doctors and hospitals won't take the lower government reimbursement rates and thus undermine the reforms because there isn't enough supply for those on the government plan?

Trying to understand here. Ideologically I'll admit that it would take a LOT for me to agree that people shouldn't be able to spend their money as they choose, but I'd entertain positions to the contrary with an open mind.

 

[youbet]

Socialism is owning the means of production. .

You've said this in more than one thread now and I'd like to challenge because you're misleading by leaving out the concept of equal ownership. Citizens already substantially own the means of production in our country, but some own much more than others. In socialism, we'd share ownership equally, with political leadership/operatives having control.

In Canadian healthcare, my perception is that all Canadians "own" the health care system equally. The govt controls it.

It's certainly socialism in that sense. If you feel the USA system is laissez-faire capitalism gone amuck, then a "socialized" healthcare system (owned equally by all the citizens and controlled by the govt) would be an improvement in your view.

My own opinion is that folks in the USA with good insurance and substantial assets to fill in any holes that insurance leaves open have a better health care system than Canadians. Conversely, folks who (through their own negligence or because of the nature of the USA system) have only USA safety nets for health care coverage would benefit by being under a Canadian-like system.

It's a toss-up at our house. DW and I will likely see a degradation in health care coverage (higher cost and/or less access to or choices of services) under the latest proposals. My adult son, however, has health issues and his son has cerebral palsy. So DW and I are pulling for a plan that 100% lifts the burden of paying for their healthcare from their shoulders and onto the broader shoulders of the general public. DW and I could take a couple of fancy international vacations per year with the money we now spend making sure son and grandson get the necessary care (beyond what their private insurance will cover) and we look forward to spending that money on ourselves in retirement by sharing the cost with all our fellow citizens.

I think the outcome of "healthcare reform" will vary household to household with winners and losers. And, as stated, in our extended family, it's going to be a wash.

 

[youbet]

Why do you say "hopefully"? Do you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to spend money on legal products as they see fit?

Or is the fear that if these "supplementals" are allowed, many doctors and hospitals won't take the lower government reimbursement rates and thus undermine the reforms because there isn't enough supply for those on the government plan?

I was primarily thinking of the Canadian system which does not allow private supplemental insurance. (If I misunderstand that, please correct.)

Your point that supplementals, with probably higher payment rates, will draw resources away from citizens with only the govt plan is a good one. Yep, just as many doc's no longer take Medicare patients today, I suppose many won't take "govt" insured patients in the future if middle and upperclass folks have supplemental policies that pay providers at a higher level.

In any case, I think you can be assured that under the current administration and Congress, any two-tier systems that allows one class of citizens to receive care beyond what another class receives will not exist for long.

 

[M Paquette]

I was primarily thinking of the Canadian system which does not allow private supplemental insurance. (If I misunderstand that, please correct.)

Supplemental coverage is routinely used in Canada to cover gaps in what the various provincial programs cover. About 2/3 of canadians have supplemental coverage for things like dental work, eye care, prescription drugs, and private hospital rooms.

Canada's biggest healthcare problem is a shortage of medical people. There was a concern years ago about a possible glut of doctors, and medical school admissions were restricted. Oops. There are a bunch of interesting statistical details below it, including interesting shifts in the age and gender makeup of the physician workforce, but ultimately the provincial governments messed up in regard to medical school funding and class size estimates. (Canada had a bit of an export problem with it's doctor population starting shortly after the Canada Health Act was passed, for some reason. Oops again. It wasn't the idea of the Act, but some of the ham-handed details and implementation.)

 

[youbet]

Supplemental coverage is routinely used in Canada to cover gaps in what the various provincial programs cover. About 2/3 of canadians have supplemental coverage for things like dental work, eye care, prescription drugs, and private hospital rooms.

Thanks. Somehow I got the impression that Canadian healthcare coverage was provided exclusively by their national healthcare plan and individual citizens did not/could not purchase supplemental policies. Although, the coverage areas you mention aren't what I was thinking of. I meant supplemental policies that would pay for doctor or hospital charges above what the national coverage pays for or for tests or treatments not allowed by the national plan.

Kind of makes me wonder if the future USA national plan will cover dental, eye care, prescription drugs and that sort of thing........

 

[samclem]

Canada's biggest healthcare problem is a shortage of medical people. There was a concern years ago about a possible glut of doctors, and medical school admissions were restricted. Oops. There are a bunch of interesting statistical details below it, including interesting shifts in the age and gender makeup of the physician workforce, but ultimately the provincial governments messed up in regard to medical school funding and class size estimates. (Canada had a bit of an export problem with it's doctor population starting shortly after the Canada Health Act was passed, for some reason. Oops again. It wasn't the idea of the Act, but some of the ham-handed details and implementation.)

I'm amazed that these central planners can't get it right--forecasting just how many doctors will be needed, etc. Who could have guessed that low reimbursement rates would lead to a shortage of people wanting to do that particular type of work in that particular place.
Once the planners start calling the shots (number of medical school slots, hourly rate of pay, appropriate workload, etc) instead of the free market, the market will be the enemy forever. Whole societies have tried the command economy approach, and it never ends well. But maybe this time everything will turn out different somehow. . because we have hope, because we want change (don't sweat the details, there's no time to read the legislation)-- and everyone wants to do the right thing.

 

[haha]

Here is a passionate but apparently sane argument about health care.

Diabetes Update: Who Is Really Getting Euthanized

 

[eridanus]

I'm amazed that these central planners can't get it right--forecasting just how many doctors will be needed, etc.

Correct. The AMA does the same in the US and look at what's happened -- adequate results but for TWICE the money of other industrialized countries...including Canada.

The study mentioned in this article supports what other studies have found:

Health care's six money-wasting problems - Aug. 10, 2009


One of the biggest drains is when doctors overtest to make more money (and malpractice isn't a concern, at least in Texas, where the Brownsville v. Mayo analysis was done).

Another drain is the middleman and their squeeze on profits.

 

[modhatter]

Good article HaHa

In reading the blogs below it, once again I see someone make the statement "Have you read the 1118 page bill? If so you would see just how bad it is." (words to this effect anyway) Now, I have heard people say this before who are against health care reform, and I must admit I am skeptical that very many private citizens have read it. I don't imagine that it makes for a good book to curl up with. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think so. Can anyone on this board tell me they actually read it?

Here is link to HR bill: Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth

What I find most facinating is that the propaganda generated around the "End of Life Counceling" proposed to be available to all seniors every 5 years, was turned in to "would push people to undergo euthanasia".

The pages are marked, the actual wording of the bill is there in plain site for everyone to read, and there is a pole at the end asking individuals who have read the above pages from the bill if they still feel it's meaning is to push people to undergo euthanasia?

Still 34% answered Yes, I absolutely feel it's true.
15% answered Yes, I think it could be true.

Now what do you do with people who you show a picture of a horse to and keep insisting it is dog? This is the type of irrationallity I have a hard time dealing with. If you want to make an argument for or against, make it with facts, not with made up reterick that can not be substantiated.
I respect everyone has a right to their opinion and I applaud our right to freedom of speech. I just wish we could have arguments based on facts not on sillly made up interpretations. Tell me again, this is not politicallly drivern.

 

[MichaelB]

Now what do you do with people who you show a picture of a horse to and keep insisting it is dog? This is the type of irrationallity I have a hard time dealing with. If you want to make an argument for or against, make it with facts, not with made up reterick that can not be substantiated.
I respect everyone has a right to their opinion and I applaud our right to freedom of speech. I just wish we could have arguments based on facts not on sillly made up interpretations. Tell me again, this is not politicallly drivern.

It's possible that the poll outcome you mention is not the result of irrationality but instead reflects a mistrust of politicians and government.

A very dear friend - a well educated Brit - once remarked (after consuming copious amounts of distilled beverages) that the big mistake the English made, when at the peak of their empire, was not understanding that other people as rational as them could see things so differently. He then expressed hope that us "yanks" would not suffer from the same lack of vision, else our empire should follow the same course. I didn't express much hope then and have even less now.