Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Well, I suppose now is as good a time as any to come out and admit my conservatism......the problem with the reform (for me) is that it isn't happening because the government really cares about the health of its citizens, but because they are on a quest for power. I love liberty and freedom, and I don't want to give the federal government any more control. We need government reform, not health insurance reform, IMO. I would say this applies equally to democrats and republicans, as both have contributed to our nation's current crises, mostly as a result of outrageous spending. I call myself conservative because I believe in limited government; the republican party has demonstrated that they are power hungry like any other politicians. I oppose abortion (mostly on a personal level--changing the law is not on my list of political priorities, though, like I said, I do personally feel that it is wrong), and I also oppose the death penalty, so I am stuck in political limbo, socially (this is only one area where my views contradict both major parties). Ultimately my true views are supported by neither leading political party, so I am left as a lone conservative, with a growing number of others who share my beliefs, but have been alienated by the party that should have been on our side. Sad days for me, politically, though on a positive note, it's the first time in my life that I've actually felt passionate about my role as a citizen.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 18, 2009 22:15:07 GMT -5
What power do you think the government would be getting by reforming health care? In what way do you think freedom and liberty would be curtailed? Can you be specific about this new power you imagine the government would get, and how this power would curtail freedom and liberty?
Since we have a public option for seniors already (Medicare), can you tell us what new power Medicare gave the government when it was passed? How did/does Medicare limit the freedom and liberty of senior citizens (or citizens in general)?
The public option will eventually eliminate private insurance. Doctors would be government employees. Let me be clear, I have no problem helping those who are truly in need, which is why I don't completely oppose the idea of helping seniors and children, and those who work, but are not offered, or can't afford, insurance. What I do oppose is people who mooch off of the government...not to say I don't feel bad for them, but I shouldn't have to pay for everyone's mistakes. I myself have made the bad decision of being young and uninsured; but I worked harder to get into a position to have what I needed. I believe healthCARE is a human right, not an American right. However, the American government having control of health insurance would be an example of the government having more power over its citizens....not to mention the astronomical taxes.
I am not trying to incite major arguments, this is just what I believe. The beauty of freedom is that we can (hopefully) all have our own, differing beliefs (what kind of people would we be if we didn't have our own opinions?), but still live happily united. I think the best thing is to have the people on both sides (citizens, as well as those working in D.C.) who have opposing views to ensure that we have neither too much nor not enough government to maintain a healthy balance in our society.
Excerpt from H.R. 3200 (health insurance reform bill)....just so you it's clear that I back my argument with facts, not radio rhetoric:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
7 (a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
3 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
77 (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
6 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
7 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(1) GRACE PERIOD-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
7 (A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
3 (i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
2 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
3 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
13 In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this divisionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
23 (1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Subtitle B--Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage
The public option will eventually eliminate private insurance.
Countries with public health care (UK, Canada, and France, for example) still have private insurance available. It was not eliminated when their health care nationalized.
Doctors would be government employees.
In this sense, doctors in all public hospitals are already government employees. Private hospitals would continue to be private hospitals. What would change here?
Let me be clear, I have no problem helping those who are truly in need, which is why I don't completely oppose the idea of helping seniors and children, and those who work, but are not offered, or can't afford, insurance.
How does the pubic option differ from what you have described here?
However, the American government having control of health insurance would be an example of the government having more power over its citizens
I'm still confused about this power. Can you be more specific about it? What form would this power take? How would it affect the lives of citizens?
Healthcare reform w/o a public option is just window dressing. We would be left with a system no different from what we have now. One that works like oil companies, who collude to keep prices high in violation of the unenforced anti-trust laws.
While any new program increases government power and control, HR 3200 and similar bills are minimally invasive and correct massive injustices by insurance and healthcare companies. And let's face it, corporations have become a bigger danger than government in our society. Corporations buy and sell governments, invade our privacy and go unrestrained because our Founding Father had no way of foreseeing their growth into massive world powers.
The scare tactics used by Republicans to stop healthcare reform are all false. There are no death panels, no effect on Medicare, no care for illegals, no mandated abortion and the public option must exist using only the money it takes in with fees, just like private firms. It just works as a non-profit so as to keep the private firms honest. (I mean if , like Republicans always say, private industry is so much more efficient than government why are they so worried?) So why are they propagating these lies?
Republicans will never vote for reform and have actually said so. A fail bill weakens Obama and adds insurance money to their coffers. Democrats need to quit conceding parts of the bill in the name of bipartisanship and just force it through. We cannot wait another 60 years like we already have since Truman started the drive for Universal care.
We pay twice what any other country pays (3-4 times their national per capita average as a measure of GDP), do not cover everyone and get worse results. Our employer based system cripples small business, make US companies unable to compete on a world stage where everyone is covered, bankrupts millions of families and actually kills people.
Ask yourself why the fear of government now. After 8 (actually 70) years of government intrusion in the name of safety with not a word from Republicans, why this outrage over this bill now? I'm part of the libertarian-left and believe we have already ceded way too much liberty to government and corporations. I believe we are way less free than we are led to believe and need to start standing up for our right to be left alone. But government has a role in making society better and controlling corporate abuse. So this bill doesn't scare me at all.
LeslieBomb, so are you against any healthcare reform?
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 4:27:38 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
The public option will eventually eliminate private insurance.
Countries with public health care (UK, Canada, and France, for example) still have private insurance available. It was not eliminated when their health care nationalized.
In this sense, doctors in all public hospitals are already government employees. Private hospitals would continue to be private hospitals. What would change here?
How does the pubic option differ from what you have described here?
However, the American government having control of health insurance would be an example of the government having more power over its citizens
I'm still confused about this power. Can you be more specific about it? What form would this power take? How would it affect the lives of citizens?
Then why do Canadians with money come here? Nobody has mentioned yet that we have the best healthCARE in the world. Read the excerpt I posted. As far as employer-offered insurance, if you aren't grandfathered in, then you are forced to participate in the "exchange program", which is government run.
I think far fewer brilliant minds will become doctors, and I think many doctors will retire. Also doctors are the ones leading medical research. When competition is eliminated (which will happen, the insurance companies will not be able to compete against the government), so is advancement. And no, we will not continue to have private hospitals.
I'm not sure what you're confused about. I answered the question already. What form would it take? It's the government controlling yet another aspect of our daily lives! It affects the lives of citizens because we will pay enormously. Preventative care will do nothing but cost more money. Yes people should be smart and live healthy lives, but everyone doesn't need a doctor to tell them that, and some will develop conditions regardless of any preventative care. The public option helps more than those who are truly, temporarily in need. It also helps lazy, free-loading moochers who want take my hard-earned dollars. Did you know that women can get tummy tucks and breast augmentation with medicaid? Yeah, I'm not cool with paying for that. If you're smart enough to manipulate the system, you should be smart enough to work hard and pay for it yourself!
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 7:30:47 GMT -5 by lbomb - Back to Top
The republicans aren't just using scare tactics; the bill is scary! I encourage everyone to read it, or at least try to read it. No, no death panels, just "advisory boards", and we pay for illegals anyway because we don't deny health care, so those costs are passed on to the consumer.
Also to clarify something I said earlier, that Dr.s lead medical research, well obviously is the drug companies conducting and paying for research, so that wasn't a totally fair statement.
I don't know what in the world makes you say that we get "worse results"? Wha?? That just isn't true. And my dad is a small business owner (my mom is a nursing educator in a leading hospital), so let me tell you that employer health care does not cripple small businesses....because they aren't required to offer it (though my dad does), but if the government required them to offer it, well, that would be crippling. I'll tell you what else is crippling-the taxes. Small business owners are completely screwed because they pay personal taxes on the business income, even though their actual income is often far below $250K/year. Like I said before we need government reform (including term limits and tax reform) before we try to "fix" health insurance. Also, the current bill includes zero tort reform, even though malpractice suits and insurance are a major cause of our current health care costs.
Nobody has mentioned yet that we have the best healthCARE in the world. Read the excerpt I posted. As far as employer-offered insurance, if you aren't grandfathered in, then you are forced to participate in the "exchange program", which is government run.
Not trying to get confrontational but...
By what measure do you say we have the "best healthcare in the world?" We rank near bottom among industrialized countries in every empirical category (longevity, infant mortality, consumer satisfaction, etc. - www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html)
And only 60% of Americans have unfettered access to it (15% have no insurance, and up to 40% are under-insured and can't use it except in emergency) And estimates are that approx 600,000 are bankrupted by medical bill per year. (2/3 of all non-business - www.uscourts.gov/bnkrpctystats/statistics.htm#june)
And the current system is unsustainable eating up 17.6% of GDP and expected to increase by over $2B over the next decade (as opposed to the worst case of $900M for the reform)
And the Government run Exchange program you refer to includes public and private plans which are forced to meet minimum standards of care and coverage (ie, no pre-existing conditions clause, across the board rates, etc.) This does not force anyone to join the government plan, just makes everyone choose from a plan with minimum standards. This is meant to ensure that all plans compete on a level basis and keep costs under control.
True this is a part of the inevitable power given to the government with any program but it is power primarily taken from corporations to aid individuals. Of course abuse is possible but corporate abuse is real and rampant in our system today. I am a bit uneasy with the provision to move everyone into comparable plans (public and private) but there is no other pragmatic option if we are to get costs under control and still allow for multiple healthcare choices.
Not scare tactics. Let's see: (I won't print entire sections as they are cumbersome)
Death panels (see sec 1233) - scary myth - Government decides who lives and dies.
Truth - Bill states that end of life counseling (ie living wills, durable power of attorneys, etc), as provided by a health professional of your choice, be paid for by insurance. Limited to once every 5 years unless health situation changes. Not mandatory. no direct government involvement.
Scary myth - provides care for illegals (SEC. 246., I'll print this entire section as it could not be more clear and concise)
Truth - SEC. 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Abortions are not addressed in any way
Not to digress into too broad a subject but I agree we need government reform, though term limits are useless. As long as money controls elections, we're screwed ( ie a US Representative must raise $15,000 a week every week to get re-elected.) I believe public financing of elections is the only way to remove money from politics, stop corporate abuse and control and allow an "average Joe" to get elected. But the Supreme Court says that's illegal so...
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 11:40:17 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
The U.S. has the best leading research facilities (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins), and in that sense we do have the best health care available....although I will agree that in reality it may not really be available to everyone. I don't have all the answers to what will work as far as reforming anything health care-relate, but I know what will not work. "Pushing it through" without a healthy debate on a major, nation-changing piece of legislation will not work.
How do you figure this reform would control costs?
In the most simple terms, CBO estimate are that healthcare costs will raise over $2B over the next decade if we change nothing. The cost of this bill, with no cost reductions, is approx $900M over the same time.
Insurers must compete on a level field with non-profits (public option) and we'll see if the efficiency of the free market can out perform government. Sure, insurers will no longer make record profits by denying care and coverage. They will have to settle for what was considered normal profits until recently. 15 years ago insurers kept 5% of fees. They now keep 20%.
Everyone will be covered and we as a society will no longer pay the exorbitant cost of emergency rooms as primary care.
Hopefully, standardization of paperwork and filing and guaranteed coverage ( so doctor's no longer have to re-apply over and over to get procedures approved as recently happened with my wife) will reduce cost. Administration costs in healthcare now exceed 25% of total costs.
And as for a healthy debate, Republicans and the inflammatory misinformation have ensured that informed debate will be less and less likely. I've been to several shouting matches (though I don't shout). We should provide information, answer questions, and vote as we believe. Republicans are using stalling tactics to spread lies. We should not sit back and do nothing.
I'm for public meetings and public input, but if the Republicans are set on voting no, why constantly concede to them. Just as the Republicans did, we should take our electoral mandate and pass legislation we believe in. (We meaning healthcare proponents)
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 9:06:21 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I'm all for meetings and public input but if you're going to yell and scream and shout hitler and nazi germany and communism.... stay home.
My problem is not that people are opposed to this initiative... hey, thats fine, you have a right to your opinion. My problem steps in when people have NO IDEA what they're talking about yet oppose it because [insert TV/radio personality, friend, family member, etc] told them its EVIL and its the DEVIL and YOUR SKIN WILL MELT OFF AHHHHH OBAMAS A COMMIE!!!!
Funny thing, I was at a bar on Friday with a friend of mine and we were debating someone on health care who wasnt quite rabid but was definitely misinformed about the plan(and many things, actually). My friend started describing possible ways things in the country could be run and DIRECTLY quoted Karl Marx several times without attributing the quotes just to see what this guy would say.... he agreed!
Maybe we can continue this debate in the town halls with idiots yelling and screaming and holding up pictures of Obama as Hitler.
Follow the $.
Corporations want you to direct your anger at the government. Then they can group you in with the idiots they prop up with hollow talking points AND DISMISS YOU, divide and conquer style. True protest has been co-opted. TV is too expensive for real debate...who's gonna sponsor it ? The revolution will not be televised.
Dog bless TROO, speaker of the truth, lover of this country and forum.
ps-this post not aimed at anyone (except Troo-whom I want to know has the utmost respect of many people who prefer to read instead of post)...
Sadly, this is type of people health insurance reformers are forced to deal with.
The facts are out there and anybody willing to take a look can see. The problem is that people don't go searching for the facts. Some are plain confused (see "Keep your Gov't hands off my Medicare!" statement at town hall). Even though Obama was elected, there are still many many people who fear change of any kind.
GOP Congressman: Ok folks, yes, I'm opposed to this health care bill Crowd: <CHEER> GOP Congressman: But you folks need to stop getting your opinions from Glenn Beck Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Then why do Canadians with money come here? Nobody has mentioned yet that we have the best healthCARE in the world.
It is true that some 65,000 to 80,000 people from around the world come to the US from abroad for medical care. It is also true that 750,000 to 1.5 million Americans go to other countries for medical care each year.
I think far fewer brilliant minds will become doctors, and I think many doctors will retire. Also doctors are the ones leading medical research. When competition is eliminated (which will happen, the insurance companies will not be able to compete against the government), so is advancement.
Also to clarify something I said earlier, that Dr.s lead medical research, well obviously is the NO NO WORD!!! companies conducting and paying for research, so that wasn't a totally fair statement.
And no, we will not continue to have private hospitals.
What evidence do you have for this? Many countries with nationalized health care still have private doctors, hospitals, and insurance. Why wouldn't we?
I'm not sure what you're confused about. I answered the question already. What form would it take? It's the government controlling yet another aspect of our daily lives! It affects the lives of citizens because we will pay enormously.
We already pay enormously. If businesses and individuals didn't have to pay insurance premiums, any tax increase would be more than offset. Troo has already discussed how costs would go down -- administrative overhead is the reason the US pays more per capita for health care for worse overall outcomes than any other industrialized nation.
Tort reform will not help bring down costs. The total share of malpractice costs is 0.6% of health care costs. Less than 1% of total costs. Even if tort reform made malpractice costs $0, it wouldn't help drive down health care costs by even 1%.
Sadly, this is type of people health insurance reformers are forced to deal with.
The facts are out there and anybody willing to take a look can see. The problem is that people don't go searching for the facts. Some are plain confused (see "Keep your Gov't hands off my Medicare!" statement at town hall). Even though Obama was elected, there are still many many people who fear change of any kind.
Thank you so much for that video. It's just one of the many examples of the crazy fears that people have. Most of these town-hall meeting people are just spouting off irrational fears and some are even crying hysterically because "their country is being taken away".
I can't believe this woman called this a "nazi plan" from Obama. I understand if you have legitimate gripes over some parts of this reform.....but just spreading hate and ignorant, false information (see "Death panels" from Palin) does nothing but increase the fighting. This woman didn't have a real question. She just wanted to show her opposition to Obama and rile up the crowd.
Post by questionablesanity on Aug 19, 2009 15:17:22 GMT -5
I am an xray tech and I keep two jobs. My full time job is at a physician's office and the other is at a small rural hospital. I am against big governement but I do think that healthcare system needs some regulation. I voted for Obama and rallied lots of people to vote for him as well. I went door to door registering people to vote. I am against his healthcare plan though. He's going in the wrong direction with it. What he should be doing is :
1. Allowing portability of insurance across state lines. This would drive down insurance premiums by creating competition. Have you ever noticed that there are hundreds of car insurance commercials on tv daily, but you never see any for health insurance? Look how competetive the car insurance market is. Health insurance should be like that as well. It would allow people who cannot currently afford insurance, at least have a shot at it.
2. There should be a monetary cap placed on litigation. This would lower the amount of defensive medicine which, according to a recent article I read, accounts for 14 billion dollars a year. I see it every day in the ER. A physician will tell me that clinically, he or she knows there is nothing fractured, but that we should xray or CT it so that they can cover their ass. If a doctor wasn't scared to death of being sued, then they would rely more on their clinical skills rather than xray or CT everything. This could also lower the rate of Cancer. 2% of all new cancers can be attributed to CAT scans.
3. People without insurance should be referred to University hospitals who have clinics staffed by medical students (who work for free), residents (who are already doctors working at a reduced salary for continued training), and staff physicians who oversee the previous two. This was actually recommended by a physician who has worked at USC for 40 years. We have a volunteers in medicine clinic where I live. Physicians from all over the city come in and volunteer their services once a week. It's free healthcare.
4. Emergency rooms should be able to turn away or refer people who abuse the ER. I see it everyday. I'll go over to get a patient and I'll ask them what is going on. They'll say, "Well, my knee has been hurting for about two years, so I'd thought I'd come in and get it checked out." That patient usually does not have insurance so they could care less that the visit will cost them $1000 instead of $60 at their family doctor. They don't plan on paying anyway. It is people like that who ruin healthcare and make it expensive. Hospitals have to charge more for exams to make up for the patients who don't pay, can't pay, or won't pay. A CAT scan at my office costs around $1200.00. The same CAT scan at the local not for profit hospital costs $5000.00.
5. Caps should be put on private insurer's CEO salaries. If CEOs didn't get bonuses for making profits, people's claims would not be denied near as often. I seen bankruptcy notices in charts all of time because insurance companies refused to pay.
There will still be private hospitals if the current plan goes through, but there will no longer be small rural hospitals because they will not be able to afford to keep their doors open. Medicare usually reimburses about 30-40% and that is not enough to sustain a hospital. That means that hospitals will no longer be able to afford new equipment.
If there is a public option, most private insurance companies would sell out and eventually we would have a single payer system....THE GOVERNMENT. They would then decide, like Medicare and Medicaid, how much they would reimburse. This would barely be enough to cover costs. We would no longer have the greatest minds in our coutry going to school for 12-14 years to be doctors because they wouldn't make enough money to pay off their student loans. Salaries would also go down for ancillary employees (nurses, lab techs, xray techs, etc...) so you'd have someone working for minimum wage performing medical procedures on you.
Cuba spends less than $200 per capita on health care. We spend over $8000. Their life expectancy is longer than ours. What are they doing right?
I always thought that Universal Healthcare was the way to go. Everyone deserves good healthcare. In a universal system, you may get to see a doctor relatively quickly, but you may have to wait months to get any tests to confirm a diagnosis to begin treatment. I once read that there are 6 PET scanners in all of Europe. I then read that there are 6 PET scanners in some large cities in the US. If you knew that you have Cancer that was confirmed by a biopsy, but then didn't know if it had metastasized to any other part of your body. Wouldn't you want to have quick access to a machine and facility to do that? That is something that you won't have with universal healthcare. You may have to wait months. That is straight out of the mouths of several physicians that i have spoken with about the subject.
I watched Michael Moore's sicko a few months ago. At first, I was outraged at most of it. But then I started thinking about what he didn't show you. That made me even madder and I love Michael Moore.
A Thieve's Parade 2/24 Conspirator 2/26 Kevin Smith 3/11 Keller 3/17 Papadosio 3/18 JJ Grey 3/25 Bela Fleck/Edgar Meyer 3/26 Toubab Krewe 3/27 O'Death 4/11 Budos Band 4/22 EOTO 4/28 Summer Camp 5/6-29 All Good
1. Allowing portability of insurance across state lines. This would drive down insurance premiums by creating competition. Have you ever noticed that there are hundreds of car insurance commercials on tv daily, but you never see any for health insurance? Look how competetive the car insurance market is. Health insurance should be like that as well. It would allow people who cannot currently afford insurance, at least have a shot at it.
The problem with this is that insurance companies would relocate to the states with the least regulation and enforcement of insurance laws. You'd get cheap insurance, but it wouldn't actually cover anything.
3. People without insurance should be referred to University hospitals who have clinics staffed by medical students (who work for free), residents (who are already doctors working at a reduced salary for continued training), and staff physicians who oversee the previous two. This was actually recommended by a physician who has worked at USC for 40 years. We have a volunteers in medicine clinic where I live. Physicians from all over the city come in and volunteer their services once a week. It's free healthcare.
This would be a good idea, especially it it was available every day instead of once a week. People don't get hit by cars, fall from ladders, and catch the flu only on Wednesdays. Something tells me this wouldn't work out well if it attempted to cover everyone who needs it.
5. Caps should be put on private insurer's CEO salaries. If CEOs didn't get bonuses for making profits, people's claims would not be denied near as often. I seen bankruptcy notices in charts all of time because insurance companies refused to pay.
This is true. More than half of all bankruptcies (some 62%) in the US are related to medical bills.
We would no longer have the greatest minds in our coutry going to school for 12-14 years to be doctors because they wouldn't make enough money to pay off their student loans.
Of course we could always create grant programs and service programs (like Americorps) that wipes the debt clean. Do other countries with nationalized health have problems getting good doctors? If so, why do they have similar or better overall outcomes than the US? If they are able to staff hospitals with good doctors, I don't think we would have any trouble doing it.
In a universal system, you may get to see a doctor relatively quickly, but you may have to wait months to get any tests to confirm a diagnosis to begin treatment.
I've heard this, but the people I know from the UK and France say that this isn't true. For things like cancer, the wait times are no different there than they are here (so people who lived there say). I'd like to see some actual evidence before I believe the wait time myth.
Nitetime addressed many of these points so I'l just quickly touch on some.
"3. People without insurance should be referred to University hospitals who have clinics staffed by medical students (who work for free), residents (who are already doctors working at a reduced salary for continued training), and staff physicians who oversee the previous two. "
Refering people to medical hospitals is not an option in the majority of the country. Rural areas and travelling long distances makes this impractical. Also with the number of uninsured and under-insured, universities would never be able to handle the massive workload' And with constantly reduced funding, universities could not handle the monetary costs. We would drive universities and medical student out of the business.
"Emergency rooms should be able to turn away or refer people who abuse the ER. I see it everyday. I'll go over to get a patient and I'll ask them what is going on. They'll say, "Well, my knee has been hurting for about two years, so I'd thought I'd come in and get it checked out." That patient usually does not have insurance so they could care less that the visit will cost them $1000 instead of $60 at their family doctor. They don't plan on paying anyway."
Your ER example makes the case for universal healthcare. People wait 2 years for care because they cannot afford to go and choose the only option available when they do go, which is ER and default on the bill. Universal coverage would stop this abuse and stop the wasted manpower and costs to people who actually pay for it (the insured)
"There will still be private hospitals if the current plan goes through, but there will no longer be small rural hospitals ...If there is a public option, most private insurance companies would sell out and eventually we would have a single payer system....THE GOVERNMENT"
I disagree with these blanket statements. In any case, there were plenty of private, non-profit hospitals before 1970 when Nixon allowed for profit healthcare in the US. And private insurance can make a profit in competition with a public plan (especially since the public plan can only rely on finds from fees, just like the private plans) Private plans will just no longer be able to make outrageous profits and stay competitive.
"I once read that there are 6 PET scanners in all of Europe. I then read that there are 6 PET scanners in some large cities in the US."
Your info is inaccurate and/or out of date. A quick google search found that a single company in south Britain has 12 mobile PET scan units. Europe has an average of 2 PET units per million persons. Meaing they have about 2000 PET scans (well short of the US avg but the concentration of population and use of mobile units helps with the congestion)
Also our system causes many delays. The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network says one in four families affected by cancer claims to have put off or delay care in the last year because of cost. Nearly third of cancer patients in current treatment cut pills or skipped doses, in the past year, nearly one-quarter delayed a recommended cancer screening or treatment and 1 out of 5 did not fill a prescription
And you might do a google search of “insurance denial of pet scan” and you’ll find more people discussing this on oncology sites than can be counted.
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 17:19:22 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
My GF spent 2002-2007 in Germany, her insurance was 89 euros (100 dollars) a month, and there were no co pays for services or prescriptions. She has said that test results, and specialists were actually much faster there because people did not go to the ER for any little thing since they could go to a family physician for almost anything short of a major illness or trauma. To me that will be the biggest thing about universal coverage, I think it will really stop people trying to game the system.
govt cant even run the post office, social security/medicare/medicaid are going bankrupt (if not there already). the stimulus did not keep unemployment below 8%. actually, if you ask the majority of americans if their lives have improved because of the stimulus, the answer will be no. and what happened with the thousands of shovel-ready jobs? the cash-for-clunkers money was used up twice in mere days/weeks, when the original amount was supposed to last until oct/nov. what makes you think that we can listen to this govt when it comes to fiscal issues?
i agree that reform needs to happen. what exactly, i have no clue. i just know that if its like any other plan obama has shoved down our throats, it will just be another tax that will lead to no where. i do find it funny that polls reveal that a majority of americans do not want obama's reform. they do agree there needs to be change, but not "change we can believe in" obama's plan. also, why is it that the white house is constantly changing their position regarding healthcare. for example, "healthcare reform" to "healthcare insurance reform". why can they not give specific examples of what things will cost, what exactly is covered/not covered? obama is always so vague, and thats where people are all mesmorized. when they find out specifics, they realized that they were disillusioned.
i know that everyone here is so adamant about proof, but im too lazy right now to go looking for an audio/video clip/quotation of some official who i dont even know the name of. however, there was one particular appointed official that said they do not support the reading of the entire bill. well why is that?
i know that some will have issues regarding my first sentence, so let me restate that. i know that this admin didnt create the post office system, or medicare/medicaid, and that they arent the way they are because of this administration. however, the point was that one cannot trust govt when it comes to fiscal issues.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 19, 2009 21:33:11 GMT -5
The Post Office delivers mail directly to my house every single day. I send my bills out from my house for the price of 44 cents and they always get there on time. The Post Office works great.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not going bankrupt.
The cash for clunkers program has proven to be a very successful program. It is not out of funds. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that all dealers will be reimbursed. "They're gong to get their money," LaHood said during a press conference. "We have the money to provide to them. We have put an enormous number of people on the task of processing the paperwork. There will be no car dealer that won't be reimbursed."
Thanks jig and mofro, it's good to know I'm not alone. Mofro has some great ideas, they are sort of in line with John Mackey's plan, which I like (I know that will be unpopular here, but I think we're past that )
The bottom line is: public option leads to single-payer, leads to government control. You may not like corporations, but they aren't the ones limiting your liberties.
And as far as proudly quoting Karl Marx....yeah communism was really awesome when my best friends parents were running through the forest in the middle of the night to cross the border and escape the communist Soviet Union. After her mom was denied the opportunity to attend college because she "didn't understand the plight of the working man", they decided it was time to get the hell out! Luckily they made to the U.S. where they worked hard and made a good living....without the help of the government.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 19, 2009 21:52:28 GMT -5
But back to health care. If you're really interested in Obama's Plan, including numbers, and decide not to be "too lazy" to actually do some research you can look here www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/ for much more information read the info found here www.healthreform.gov/.
I'm not sure the White House is "constantly changing its position" at all. What it is doing is negotiating with Congress to get health care reform legislation passed. That means compromise, and it means negotiation. Honestly, though, I don't know why they're bothering to "negotiate," with opponents of health care reform because it's pretty clear that congressional Republicans are acting in bad faith.
Wolfman--I too received health care in Europe. It was a different situation because I was injured at the beginning of a two week trip. I went to the Dr. in Germany (where I was injured) and received tetanus shots (they give them in a series there, instead of one like we get here--nothing to do with the reform, just pointing out the reason why I had multiple shots, instead of only one) and a bandage for my knee. Nobody even looked at my ankle, even though I told them that it hurt, and it was very swollen. Then I went to Paris, where I saw another Dr. who just cleaned my wound (even though, as a nurse's daughter, I had been cleaning it obsessively) and still didn't look at my ankle, even though I was limping at this point. When I got back home and saw my Dr., she was absolutely appalled that I wasn't on crutches and antibiotics. It's not like I was drifting through, traveling on my own; I was on a school trip. So...my personal overseas experience was less than desirable.
I have been uninsured, and yes it sucked, but it was my own fault. It's shouldn't be the government's role to take care of everyone....have we forgotten about personal responsibility?